The Polkinghorne murder trial has drawn a line for media coverage of our courts. It is a line that must not be crossed.
Beyond it lies the possibility of interference with fair trial rights, or a misrepresentation which affects the public’s confidence in our court system. Crossing that line could have led to a mistrial, an offence under the Contempt of Court Act, or a loss of public confidence in our court system.
I think some coverage went close to the line. It was not crossed because, had it done so, miscreant media would have been called to account by the judge.
You’ll note I use the term ‘coverage’ rather that ‘reportage’. That is because I believe some of it went beyond the normal standards of court reporting to embrace observations, interpretations, and opinions. Some went beyond the confines of the court.
The trial of retired Remuera eye surgeon Philip Polkinghorne over the death of his wife, Pauline Hanna, ended last week in his acquittal. It appeared from a note passed to the judge by the jury during their deliberations that there was reasonable doubt within their ranks over whether she had been killed or had taken her own life. That appears to have been reflected in the verdict that was returned a short time later.
I have no intention of revisiting the evidence or the verdict. ‘Reasonable doubt’ is a well-understood concept. As I told a Stuff reporter for a story that led The Press last week: “I think we have seen justice done’.
However, I also told the reporter that I’d read colourful and dramatic accounts of the case that drew on comments and descriptions from the authors of some coverage which weren’t evidence, and pushed at the boundaries of media coverage. And that was because the case was suffused with what I described as “sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll”. Continue reading “Polkinghorne: Did coverage go to the line?”
