The law of media publicity contempt is obviously broken. The problem Essay

The law of media publicity contempt is obviously broken. The problem is that there is no better system that might reasonably su - Essay ExampleA strict implementation of prohibition laws such as the 1987 Act run to clash, however, with certain basic human rights such as freedom of the press and the right to information. On top of this, advances in communication technology and the advent of globalisation make it doubly hard for authorities to fully impose sanctions on recalcitrant press and bloggers. Nonetheless, it would be wrong to say that the UK law on media publicity contempt is tot solelyy broken and that there is nothing that can be done about it. On the contrary, the UK media publicity contempt system has proven to be comparatively effective than those of other jurisdictions and the present state of the law presents a more mature approach in balancing between freedoms and obligations. State of the lawfulness Media Publicity Contempt English media publicity contempt is gove rned primarily by the Contempt of Court Act 1981. It is a strict liability rule that does not take into consideration intent as an element in finding a verdict of guilt or absence of it and applies to publications, which include speech, writing and all other form of communications, addressed to the public. The strict liability rule applies only in the following possibilitys when publications create substantial risk in the obstruction or prejudice of judicial proceedings, and the proceedings are active, as defined in Schedule 1 of said law. Schedule 1 describes an active proceeding, whether criminal or appellate, as the period from the time of a proceedings initial steps to the time of its conclusion, with initial steps including the arrest of the accused without warrant, the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the issuance of summons, the service of indictment or similar documents or oral heading. The conclusion stage of a proceeding includes the acquittal or some(prenominal) other verdict, which ends the proceeding or the discontinuance of the proceeding or by operation of law.1 The British law on media publicity contempt arose out of the 1820 case of R v Clement 2 where the Observer publisher was fined ?500 for featuring a series of report on an ongoing trial. The case involved the trials of Cato path conspirators who were then charged of treason for conspiring to kill members of the British Cabinet. The Observer was faithfully detailing the trials to the chagrin of the Government who was trying to conceal its substantive and procedural lapses. The newspapers editor was charged and tried in absentia for contempt for disregarding a court gag order. His subsequent appeal, which was also heard by nigh the same judges who decided against him in the lower court contrary to the principle of natural justice, was dismissed.3 Since 1931, however, a scandalising the court case, or a case where the charge involves bringing down the authority of the judge or court th rough an act or publication, has not been successful in this jurisdiction.4 The 1981 Act came about as a result of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision in the case of The Sunday Times v United Kingdom5 where the newspaper featured a series of reports about the drug thalidomide that caused women to give birth to deformed babies during the pendency of the negotiations of settlement between