Why Sun reporter Anthony France should not go to jail
|
Version 0 of 1. Anthony France, the Sun reporter found guilty of aiding and abetting a police officer to commit misconduct in a public office, is due to be sentenced tomorrow. After the jury’s verdict, Judge Timothy Pontius warned him that although he was releasing him on bail it was not an indication of the sentence he would hand down. In other words, France might be jailed. But the judge did add that he would “keep an open mind” until he heard representations from France’s lawyer. I very much doubt that the judge will take account of what I say. For what it’s worth, my view is that the jury was wrong to convict and, unsurprisingly, I therefore don’t think a prison sentence would be appropriate. Nor do I imagine the judge will read a blogpost by Colin Randall offering what he calls strong mitigation for “fall guy” France. But I do hope France’s lawyer takes on board the arguments advanced in Randall’s piece. (Randall, for those who don’t know, spent 27 years on the Daily Telegraph, including a spell as the paper’s Paris bureau chief, and is now a freelance journalist based in France). It should be read in full, but here is the outline of his opinion about what he regards as “authority’s war on journalism” by “vengeful officialdom”, plus some edited highlights. Randall refers to the “misconduct in public office” charge as a 13th century offence, reminding us that an appeal court judge described it as “an ancient common law offence” which “is being used in circumstances where it has rarely before been applied”. In such circumstances, Randall writes: “It would be an outrage if France were not able to leave the Old Bailey a free man, and I hope the judge, who admittedly has a difficult task, will see that no proper cause or interest would otherwise be served”. He points out that juries hearing cases against other Sun journalists have “risen bravely above grotesque prosecution rhetoric designed to secure convictions, and undoubted public disdain for the tabloid press, to acquit or at least fail[ed] to convict the journalists standing in the dock”. He thinks it “regrettable” that papers pay for information, and stresses that he has never done so, but regards payment as “infinitely preferable to the quick march now under way towards government and administration by authorised press release”. Here are two key paragraphs, which bear repeating as often as possible. “I have repeatedly written that a corporate criminal prosecution, arising from hacking or the payment of officials, would also be a reasonable step, whether or not it ought to result in conviction. What I bitterly oppose is the squalid, politically convenient pursuit of foot soldiers doing the bidding of the generals, top brass who then, to their everlasting shame, deserted their troops (not to mention what they did to the civvies, ie the confidential sources)”. Randall calls on the judge “to apply a sense of proportion” because France “is not a menace to the public... has not profited from his supposed crime... [and] honestly believed he was acting with at least the tacit blessing of in-house lawyers”. He concludes: “The whole saga reeks of rotten justice. I do not expect an Old Bailey judge to agree with me on that. I do expect him to exercise the restraint and compassion Anthony France clearly deserves”. As I say, it should be read in full here. I do not agree with some of it but he is spot on about France being a scapegoat. It would be iniquitous for him to go to jail. And let us remember that the only reason he was arrested and charged is because, on Rupert Murdoch’s orders, internal memos were handed over to the Metropolitan police. News Corporation sanctioned what France did, what all the Sun journalists did. The wrong person will be sentenced tomorrow. |