CLIVE GOODMAN the royal editor of the News of the World had every reason to believe that, in the wake of the government’s decision last week to spare all but the worst offenders from jail, (his own transgressions — tapping Prince William’s phone messages to aides) might lead him to walk away a free man.
His hopes were dashed as Mr Justice Gross handed him a four-month jail term in Belmarsh prison.
His use of interception techniques to plunder the mobile phone messages of high-profile figures was deemed so serious that the judge said it was “of very first importance” that he be jailed.
That was not the end of the affair, however. It was promptly followed by an announcement that the newspaper’s editor, Andy Coulson, had resigned. Unlike many politicians who cling to power amid scandal, Coulson decided that the buck stopped with him.
This weekend it emerged that such courtroom scenes may soon become commonplace. The government is said to be “keen” to introduce jail sentences for journalists who use deceit to obtain other forms of private information, including bank records, ex-directory telephone numbers and medical records.
Unlike phone tapping, which is an offence under the potent Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, data breaches are covered by the Data Protection Act and are only punishable by fines.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which was set up to oversee the act, has called for the imposition of two-year jail sentences to curb what it believes is the widespread abuse of confidential information by private investigators acting for clients including legal firms, finance centres and journalists.
The Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) has now completed a consultation paper and Lord Falconer, the lord chancellor, is seriously considering the introduction of jail terms later this year.
A DCA spokesman said yesterday: “The government is very keen to crack down on the abuse of the Data Protection Act. The mood is that something has to be done. There is a view, not just in our department, that the penalties need stiffening.” Jail terms, say the ICO, would act as a deterrent to journalists accessing people’s data without good cause. The act does provide for journalists to obtain such details as long as they do so “in the public interest”.
However, proving what is in the public interest is not always straightforward. One senior industry figure said: “That kind of justification is very rarely apparent at the start of a journalistic investigation. Introducing two-year sentences for accessing data may lead journalists to restrict themselves to the extent of not making inquiries in the first place.”
Goodman’s actions included accessing more than 600 messages on the mobile phones of aides to Princes William and Harry in order to get stories about them and Harry’s girlfriend Chelsy Davy. He also used Glenn Mulcaire, a private detective, to listen to the private messages of Elle Macpherson. The activity was deemed so serious that Coulson felt he had to resign.
The News of the World editor, who delivered tabloid scoops such as revealing David Blunkett’s affair with Kimberly Quinn, and the “fake sheikh” sting on Sven-Goran Eriksson, the former England football coach, announced his departure from the paper 90 minutes after the sentence was read out at the Old Bailey.
“Before he left he made a speech to the paper’s staff which mentioned the fact that paedophiles were being allowed to walk the streets while Clive Goodman was being sent to jail,” said an insider.
The government’s move to threaten journalists with jail, which Whitehall insiders said had been strengthened further by public revulsion over the actions of Goodman, has renewed debate about the need to impose greater controls on the newspaper industry generally.
According to some media commentators, recent judgments in the civil courts — such as Prince Charles suing over the publication of extracts from his diary, and a cuckolded husband being told he cannot reveal his wife’s affair with a well known sports figure — have now given Britain a de facto privacy law.
His hopes were dashed as Mr Justice Gross handed him a four-month jail term in Belmarsh prison.
His use of interception techniques to plunder the mobile phone messages of high-profile figures was deemed so serious that the judge said it was “of very first importance” that he be jailed.
That was not the end of the affair, however. It was promptly followed by an announcement that the newspaper’s editor, Andy Coulson, had resigned. Unlike many politicians who cling to power amid scandal, Coulson decided that the buck stopped with him.
This weekend it emerged that such courtroom scenes may soon become commonplace. The government is said to be “keen” to introduce jail sentences for journalists who use deceit to obtain other forms of private information, including bank records, ex-directory telephone numbers and medical records.
Unlike phone tapping, which is an offence under the potent Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, data breaches are covered by the Data Protection Act and are only punishable by fines.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which was set up to oversee the act, has called for the imposition of two-year jail sentences to curb what it believes is the widespread abuse of confidential information by private investigators acting for clients including legal firms, finance centres and journalists.
The Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) has now completed a consultation paper and Lord Falconer, the lord chancellor, is seriously considering the introduction of jail terms later this year.
A DCA spokesman said yesterday: “The government is very keen to crack down on the abuse of the Data Protection Act. The mood is that something has to be done. There is a view, not just in our department, that the penalties need stiffening.” Jail terms, say the ICO, would act as a deterrent to journalists accessing people’s data without good cause. The act does provide for journalists to obtain such details as long as they do so “in the public interest”.
However, proving what is in the public interest is not always straightforward. One senior industry figure said: “That kind of justification is very rarely apparent at the start of a journalistic investigation. Introducing two-year sentences for accessing data may lead journalists to restrict themselves to the extent of not making inquiries in the first place.”
Goodman’s actions included accessing more than 600 messages on the mobile phones of aides to Princes William and Harry in order to get stories about them and Harry’s girlfriend Chelsy Davy. He also used Glenn Mulcaire, a private detective, to listen to the private messages of Elle Macpherson. The activity was deemed so serious that Coulson felt he had to resign.
The News of the World editor, who delivered tabloid scoops such as revealing David Blunkett’s affair with Kimberly Quinn, and the “fake sheikh” sting on Sven-Goran Eriksson, the former England football coach, announced his departure from the paper 90 minutes after the sentence was read out at the Old Bailey.
“Before he left he made a speech to the paper’s staff which mentioned the fact that paedophiles were being allowed to walk the streets while Clive Goodman was being sent to jail,” said an insider.
The government’s move to threaten journalists with jail, which Whitehall insiders said had been strengthened further by public revulsion over the actions of Goodman, has renewed debate about the need to impose greater controls on the newspaper industry generally.
According to some media commentators, recent judgments in the civil courts — such as Prince Charles suing over the publication of extracts from his diary, and a cuckolded husband being told he cannot reveal his wife’s affair with a well known sports figure — have now given Britain a de facto privacy law.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home