Why can’t we discuss in regards to the Nicola Sturgeon scandal?
The arrest of Nicola Sturgeon has despatched shockwaves via Scottish politics. Yesterday, the previous first minister was questioned by police for seven hours earlier than being launched with out cost. She turns into the third senior SNP official to be arrested beneath Police Scotland’s investigation into the get together’s funds, following the arrests of treasurer Colin Beattie and chief govt Peter Murrell, who can be her husband. (Each males had been additionally questioned after which launched with out cost.)
It’s a rare story. But you might have seen that the commentary round it has been decidedly muted. Scour the British or Scottish papers and also you gained’t discover a single article defending or damning Sturgeon or the opposite SNP bigwigs. Activate the TV or radio and there are not any main rows or bust-ups about this unprecedented occasion. The commentariat has been cowed.
This eerie silence is essentially because of the chilling impact of Britain’s contempt-of-court legal guidelines. The Contempt of Court docket Act 1981 criminalises the publication of something which may pose a ‘substantial danger of great prejudice’ to a authorized case. Though it’s a UK-wide legislation, it’s utilized rather more stringently in Scotland. And whereas in England contempt legal guidelines solely kick in after a suspect is charged, in Scotland an individual solely must be arrested for a case to be thought of ‘lively’ beneath the act.
As Roddy Dunlop KC, dean of the College of Advocates, warned on social media yesterday following Sturgeon’s arrest: ‘The Contempt of Court docket Act 1981 kicks in after arrest. Thereafter, espousing your strongly held views as to guilt or innocence on social media is spectacularly unwise, harmful and to be averted.’
The legislation goes past expressing opinions a couple of suspect’s guilt or innocence, nevertheless. As a current Twitter thread by Scotland’s Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) spelt out, contempt legal guidelines imply you can not publish ‘commentary or evaluation of proof, witnesses or accused’ – on any platform, whether or not within the print or broadcast media, or on social media or on-line. That covers just about every little thing you would possibly wish to say in regards to the SNP’s financing scandal.
Extra alarming nonetheless, because the COPFS warns, the punishment for such commentary or evaluation may be ‘as much as two years in jail and / or an infinite high-quality, in severe circumstances’. Just lately, a former diplomat was jailed for eight months for contempt of court docket due to his weblog posts through the trial of former Scottish first minister Alex Salmond.
This ever-present risk of imprisonment – even for mere commentary and evaluation – casts an icy chill over public dialogue. It limits the press to restating the info about Sturgeon’s arrest and in regards to the progress of the investigation. It results in stilted articles and bland broadcast packages, legalled to inside an inch of their lives, shorn of something which may resemble an opinion. It signifies that the press, politicians and the general public are primarily banned from talking nicely or unwell about vital public figures – and even about essentially the most momentous of political occasions.
The legislation because it stands is incoherent. As Calum Steele, former basic secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, has identified, ‘no person is aware of what it’s they’re meant to watch out about discussing’. Writing in The Instances final month, he additionally accused the SNP of exploiting the paradox of the legislation and hiding behind it to keep away from answering respectable questions. ‘There is no such thing as a authorized prohibition on the previous first minister answering questions on what she knew and when’, he wrote. However the way in which the legislation is at present being interpreted in Scotland, he stated, is giving ‘the highly effective an overt protect of safety’.
There is no such thing as a justification for these restrictions on dialogue. Different nations, just like the US, enable for a lot extra reporting and commentary on lively authorized circumstances (simply have a look at how rather more full of life the talk is over the costs in opposition to Donald Trump, as an example).
Defenders of the Contempt of Court docket Act say that jurors have to be shielded from biased media commentary. The implication is that extraordinary persons are too simply swayed by the odd tweet or newspaper article. It means that they can’t be trusted to place their prejudices apart and weigh up the proof that’s introduced in court docket. In different phrases, what these contempt-of-court legal guidelines actually specific is a contempt for the general public – in addition to for these all-important values of free speech and press freedom.
The British individuals should have the appropriate to speak in regards to the Nicola Sturgeon scandal. This state-enforced silence is an outrageous affront to democracy.
Fraser Myers is deputy editor at spiked and host of the spiked podcast. Comply with him on Twitter: @FraserMyers
