A savage attack on investigative journalism
Published
by
Richard Kuper
JVL Introduction
Journalist and former ambassador Craig Murray has been sent to prison for eight months for contempt of court.
In a careful – and passionate – analysis, Jonathan Cook argues that this is a political act of a high order, a deliberate and calculated attempt to bring independent journalists to heel.
____
Updated 1 Aug: here is a link to Craig Murray’s last blogpost before beginning his gaol sentence.
This article was originally published by Jonathan Cook's blog on Fri 30 Jul 2021. Read the original here.
Craig Murray’s jailing is the latest move in a battle to snuff out independent journalism
Loading article text…
In other words: Murray’s crime was (a) being left-wing and (b) having a considerable following.
….. And that is now being spread through all areas of public life/ organisations, ie political parties such as the Labour Party (for example the suspension of members who have asserted their democratic rights to free speech). We are expecting tthe Party to uphold human and civil rights and be the strong opposition to the government that we (the 99%) need them to be.
An excellent article on the attack by the legal establishment in journalists who are not part of the corporate establishment. It is marred by one mistake, i.e. where Jonathan says that ‘Murray is also the first person to be jailed in Britain for contempt of court in half a century’.
Of course he isn’t. Tommy Robinson was gaoled relatively recently for contempt of court. The Justice for Assange campaign qualified this assertion by saying that it was the first MEDIA contempt case.
This is a great article on yet another denial of justice by the “justice” system on the Atlantic islands, this one courtesy of Scotland. But it is the same establishment behaving in an all too familiar way when they think their interests are at stake.
A horrific story from its beginnings, of torture and unusual executions in the useful dictatorship of Uzbekistan, through to the peverse British legal system and the corrupted governments behind it and the establishment behind them.
Maybe mainstream journalists need to be reminded of Niemöller’s quotation:
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. . .”
I assume that anyone reading this will know the rest.
“We are expecting tthe Party to uphold human and civil rights and be the strong opposition to the government that we (the 99%) need them to be.”
When the LP is consistently undermining and gerrymandering due process standards and principles in the case of its own members and internal procedures the question any rational voter would ask themselves is ‘would I trust these people with power over my due process rights?’
An excellent article. I just hope Jonathan Cook isn’t next in line for incarceration…
Thank you – first of all – for publishing this outstanding piece of journalism by Jonathan Cook.
I would like to comment on three aspects of his article.
Not since 1963, when Brendan Mulholland (Daily Mail) and Reg. Foster (Daily Sketch) were jailed for six months and four months respectively for contempt of court after refusing to disclose the identity of an informant to the Vassall Tribunal, has any British journalist been imprisoned for contempt. There was outrage in Fleet Street back then; today it would be an exaggeration to say there is a whimper.
Second, I was a member of the National Union of Journalists for 57 years, 17 of which I spent as the union’s Deputy General Secretary. The NUJ’s refusal to accept Craig Murray’s membership application last year was, I believe, motivated by political malice and was contrary to the rules of the union. Rank and file members should demand an independent inquiry. The failure of the NUJ to mount any sort of campaign to defend Murray is a matter of shame.
Third, it is worth quoting the most significant section of Lady Dorrian’s judgement when rejecting Murray’s appeal against the finding of contempt. She said:
“(4) The applicant describes himself as a “journalist in new media”. Whatever that may involve, it is relevant to distinguish his position from that of the mainstream press, which is regulated, and subject to codes of practice and ethics in a way in which those writing as the applicant does are not. To the extent that the submissions for the applicant make comparisons with other press contempts, and the role of mainstream journalists, this is a factor which should be recognised”.
To suggest that the mainstream press in the UK is “regulated” is simply not true. There is no control mechanism. Equally, the idea that “codes of practice and ethics” have played any serious part in the conduct of newspaper editors and publishers is fanciful.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Murray’s appeal means that the judges failed to recognise the long-term implications of what Dorrian said. Her false distinction will be used to create a two-tier system and give mainstream journalists a privileged status that they do not want and should not have. For obvious reasons, journalists in Britain have never sought rights beyond those enjoyed by the population at large. That is what “freedom of the press” rests upon.
“Now, Lady Dorrian has put the final nail in the coffin of citizen journalism. She has declared through her ruling that she and other judges will be the ones to decide who is considered a journalist and thereby who receives legal protections for their work. ”
I’ve found some of Jonathan Cook’s writing very informative, and I’m not commenting on his opinions about Julian Assange. But about Craig Murray this won’t do. Lady Dorrian did nothing of the kind. She was not asked to judge whether Craig Murray was a journalist or not, but whether he committed contempt of court. The judge in the case – that brought against Alex Salmond for sexual assault, of which he was found not guilty – made an order prohibiting the publishing of the names of the complainants. That is normal practice in sexual assault cases. To breach such an order is contempt of court. Contempt of court is an offence of strict liability, which means that you don’t have to intend to do it in order to do it. Courts regard it very seriously. Lady Dorrian found that Craig Murray was in contempt of court for publishing things on his blog which would have allowed the complainants to be identified.
Lady Dorrian was particularly withering about a sentence Craig Murray wrote which said:
““I am dependent on you reading this whole article with intelligence, and thinking “I wonder why he just told me that bit? Where was that relevant?”
In other words, Murray was implying something he didn’t state, and telling his readers to look for it. As the only thing he couldn’t state, or hint at, was the names of the complainants, it’s reasonable to assume that he was telling an intelligent reader that he/she could find out the names by reading his blog carefully. That’s rather like sending the judge a message saying “P.S. Your Honour. In case you didn’t notice, I’m committing contempt of court.” Blatant is hardly strong enough to describe it.
Whether or not Craig Murray is a proper journalist is not relevant to what Lady Dorrian said. If he had been recognised as a journalist he would have been allowed to stay in court for private sessions, but on an undertaking not to publish anything which would breach the order, and to follow the Editors’ Code which forbids that. Lady Dorrian was rather sharp about Craig Murray’s claim to be a journalist just because he would have know about the Code if he were.
Contempt of court has a bad name because of the actions of some judges, even in the recent past, who have clapped people in prison on the spot for offences against court procedure, like taking photographs. Nothing like that happened here. Craig Murray had every opportunity to state his case. But the evidence against him was very strong, from his own writing. He could have, as they used to say, thrown himself on the mercy of the court: accepted that he’d committed quite a serious contempt, said he was only an amateur blogger, offered profuse apologies, and promised never to do anything like it again. That might have got him a suspended sentence. Instead he tried to justify himself. It is very sad to see someone who has taken courageous stands of principle in the past going to prison; but he committed the contempt and can only blame himself.
In response to A. Foster. There is a well established organization for you to join. It is BLACTA. It stands for Boot Lickers and Cap Touchers Association.