Letter: Press must take care after trials
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Musa Mazzawi (letter, 18 February) is arguably wrong in assuming that because the two trials of the men acquitted of murdering Stephen Lawrence are over, the Daily Mail may now, without hindrance, say what it likes.
The courts have held (see Archbold on Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice 1997, paragraphs 20-36) that the definition of a common law contempt of court, provided by Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd (1974), AC 273 HL, is wide enough to embrace "improper interference with persons who have been engaged in litigation after it is concluded". The assertion that men found not guilty of murder are in fact guilty, arguably amounts to such "improper interference".
STANLEY BEST
Winkleigh, Devon
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments