§ 42. Mr. SoleyTo ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the press coverage of trials.
Mr. John M. TaylorThe administration of justice should, so far as possible, be public. Subject to certain statutory safeguards, including the law relating to contempt of court, the coverage of trials is a matter for the press itself.
§ Mr. SoleyWhy did not the Lord Chancellor's Department act in the case of the Taylor sisters, where the court decided, partly on the basis of press coverage, that they had been wrongly convicted? Has the Lord Chancellor considered the alternative of requiring newspapers to cover both the defence and the prosecution equally, so that prosecutions are not based on salacious claims that later turn out to be false?
Mr. TaylorThe Lord Chancellor would not intervene in a judicial capacity—he would not act in an appellate function. I know that the hon. Gentleman has great knowledge of that subject because, some time ago, he introduced a private Member's Bill that dealt with it. I do not know whether we should consider obliging the press to cover each side equally, as they do in general elections. [Laughter.] That proposition does not seem to have found a favourable reception. I shall reflect on the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman about equality of coverage.
§ Mr. FabricantDoes my hon. Friend agree that the sub judice system in the United Kingdom is the envy of other parts of the English-speaking world? Does he further agree that the O.J. Simpson trial is making a mockery of the United States' judicial system?
Mr. TaylorI watched some of that on television last night. The sub judice rule has served us well and should be reconsidered only with the greatest possible care.