- From Russia without love again - 5th June 2026
- Law unto himself - 3rd June 2026
- Crime pays unfortunately - 3rd June 2026
During 23 years with the BBC, and in a 42 year journalistic career (when he was trained to use clear and simple language, avoiding jargon), for our Editor, Welshman Phil Parry, awareness of legal rules has always been central, and this is now highlighted by an appeal underway today by comedy writer Graham Linehan who was convicted of damaging a trans activist’s phone, in which the court was told that he was “proud”.
It is absolutely fundamental to know what you can and cannot do.
For a journalist knowledge of the law (especially in relation to libel and privacy), is critical in reporting political (indeed ANY) stories, and I have taken innumerable exams about it.
I am, therefore, disconcerted by comedy writer Graham Linehan appealing against his conviction for damaging an activist’s phone, and the court hearing that he was “proud” of his action.
Mr Linehan snatched the phone of Sophia Brooks and threw it to the ground outside the Battle of Ideas conference in Westminster on October 19 2024.
Prosecuting, Julia Faure Walker told the court Mr Linehan had gained “a sense of personal superiority” from the incident, and expressed it in a post on X (formerly Twitter).
His barrister, though, said that Ms Brooks was “determined” to get him convicted.
At an earlier court hearing Mr Linehan had been cleared of harassing Ms Brooks on social media, but convicted of damaging her phone, with this appeal in relation to THAT conviction, and it is continuing.
I make no judgement either way as to the outcome of the appeal, or Mr Linehan’s action, but all of this has put centre stage for me the importance of the law when publishing or doing anything.
Coverage of cases such as this is, I would suggest, an important part of the process, because the alleged event can be reported fully (under something called ‘Absolute Privilege’), so the defendant’s supposed actions will be known to his friends and neighbours.
Strict rules govern the reporting of these cases, and they are different to (although connected with) the laws of libel.
Broadly speaking (although there are caveats) you can report everything the jury hears, but MUST NOT publish anything they do not hear.
The rules governing libel are often not understood.
Many times I have been threatened (fatuously) with being sued (including from so-called ‘journalists’), and very often it was for things that WEREN’T SAID!
A recent absurd example was: “I am writing to formally notify you of my intention to pursue legal action against you for defamation in connection with articles published about me on The Eye website, and to raise serious concerns that your conduct may also constitute harassment under the Online Safety Act 2023”.
I have certainly never ‘harassed’ anybody, and in relation to ‘defamation’ a lawyer had been consulted, as is the case with every item I publish.
For potential litigants it is not enough to prove that the piece was offensive, it has to be shown that the facts are wrong – but thankfully mine never are!
‘Honest Comment’ formerly ‘Fair Comment‘ also has an important role to play here, so, for example, you can usually say the First Minister of Wales (FMW) is an ‘idiot’ (although she is not), but you can’t say she is a ‘paedo’, unless you have VERY strong evidence, (which she DEFINITELY is not!).
Appeals like Mr Linehan’s, have different rules again, and may not involve a jury at all.
Knowledge of these rules is critical for journalists, and at least a cursory understanding of them is necessary for everybody.
Perhaps Mr Linehan can be put in the second camp…
The memories of Phil’s astonishing, decades long award-winning career in journalism (when knowledge of legal rules was paramount), as he was gripped by the rare neurological disabling condition Hereditary Spastic Paraplegia (HSP), have been released in a major book ‘A Good Story’. Order it now.
Next week – another failure by a supposed media executive, and ‘comic’, has put centre stage how major questions have been raised about him, after a previous failed venture announced being ‘part-funded by Welsh Government’, but The Eye have shown that the man behind it had made sick ‘jokes’ about a murdering gunman, was placed under police investigation, tried to finish off this website, and been officially reprimanded.
