The following are the conclusions by the Press Council from the book "Press Conduct In The Sutcliffe Case", a report by the Press Council (1983), in regards to the police and media events that took place after the arrest of Peter Sutcliffe, and before he was charged, and how they might have affected the right of the suspect to a fair trial.
The Application of the Law
10.1 Although the protection of the presumption of innocence by the law is a matter for the law
and the courts, not for the Press Council, the Council feels bound to comment upon it in
the light of the newspaper conduct which it has considered, the evidence it has had from editors
and others and the reactions of the law officers--the Solicitor General in his warning to editors
at the beginning and the Attorney General in his statement to the House of Commons on 10 June
1981 and his letter to the Chairman of the Press Council.
10.2 In this case the presumption of innocence, and public confidence that there would be a fair
trial, were put gravely at risk: first by the police and then by the press and other media. No
prosecution for contempt followed, and the Press Council is driven to the conclusion that the law
of contempt as administered in England at that time could not, or at any rate did not, guarantee
that the presumption was preserved inviolate.
Problems for the Police and Press
10.3 The Press Council does not, however, underestimate the peculiar difficulties which faced
both the police and the press.
10.4 It was no ordinary case. For five years as murder followed murder there had been a growing
climate of fear in West Yorkshire and surrounding areas in which women and girls feared to
go out alone, their families feared for them, and neighbour was suspicious of neighbour.
10.5 For a long time there had been criticism of the police, understandable even though it may
have been unfair, for their failure to catch the criminal. After years of such criticism it is
the more understandable, though not more excusable, that the police reacted with jubilation when
they believed they had in custody the man for whom they had searched for so long.
10.6 The police and the press each faced a particular conflict of aims which was difficult to resolve.
In what the police said and in what the press reported each had to maintain the presumption of
innocence but each wanted to give immediate assurance to the public that the five-year terror was
over. It may be that there was no way in which the police and the press could have done both those
things.
10.7 From newspaper reports, radio and television broadcasts and the conduct and statements of
the police on 4 and 5 January, no doubt was left in people's minds that the terror had ended and
they could go about in safety again, but this assurance was given at the expense of the public
presumption of the innocence of the man the police had detained.
10.8 The question arises whether a failure by the police to maintain public confidence in the
presumption of innocence could excuse a subsequent failure of the press so to do.
10.9 The Press Council approached this question from the point of view of ethics not law, but it is a
basic presumption of law in dealing with contempt or defamation by newspapers and a basic
presumption of the Press Council in dealing with the ethical conduct of newspapers that the editor
is responsible for what appears in his newspaper. No one can relieve him of that responsibility
nor can he escape it.
10.10 The result is that whatever shortcomings there may have been in the conduct of this affair by
the police and by others, the decision whether or not to publish material which may have been
in contempt, prejudicial, in breach of the reporting restrictions of the Criminal Justice Act, or just
plain unfair and therefore a matter for the Press Council, lay with the editor and no one else.
10.11 The conduct of the police may have misled an unwary editor and may have mitigated his fault
in publishing something which he ought not to have published. If a chief constable or another senior
police officer calls a press conference about an important criminal inquiry of great public interest in
which a prosecution is imminent, journalists are likely to assume that what is said by police at the
conference may be reported. Being misled in that fashion may go a long way to explain an editor's
mistaken decision to publish but cannot excuse it or relieve the editor of responsibility for it.
Editors and their Lawyers
10.12 Although the Press Council was concerned to have the views of editors on the way their
coverage of Mr Sutcliffe's court appearance on 5 January complied with, or was affected by, the
reporting restrictions of the Criminal Justice Act, it distinguishes between the legal responsibilities
of newspapers imposed by those restrictions and by the law of contempt and their ethical
responsibilities which are in the particular ambit of the Press Council. It sets out that distinction
elsewhere in this report (see Chapter 3). At this point it is necessary only to say that while it is for
a newspaper's lawyer to advise about the law it is for the editor to make up his own mind about the
ethics of the matter. On this occasion the decision about what to publish was essentially one which
had to be taken by the editor at the time.
Prejudice and Unfairness
10.13 In its general consideration of the reports, articles and photographs which appeared in
newspapers the Press Council's test in this case has been whether what the newspapers published
in early January 1981, particularly on 5 and 6 January after Mr Sutcliffe's detention, was either in
itself prejudicial to a fair trial or likely to induce a widespread belief that Mr Sutcliffe would
not get a fair trial because he had already been condemned by the police and the media. It has also
considered whether publication of some material was unfair without necessarily being prejudicial.
To Name or Not To Name
10 14 Some newspapers published Peter Sutcliffe's name and address on the morning of 5 January
before he had been charged with any serious offence and before his name and address were
released by the police. Such identification is often undesirable. Usually newspapers refrain from
publishing a name until an accused person has been charged and often until after he or she
has appeared in court. One reason for this restraint may be the danger of a libel action should the
person not, after all, be charged. Another critical reason which should be more compelling is the
damage done to the person concerned. Grave harm to a person's reputation can result from his
identification as a suspect if no charge is eventually brought. In such circumstances the suspect has
no opportunity of being cleared by a court. It is good newspaper practice not to publish the name of a
person charged with an offence until that person appears in court and in our view it is desirable that
that practice should be followed. It is just conceivable that there could be a case where the defence of
a person accused might be prejudiced by premature publication of his name and address. This was
not such a case. No harm was done by Mr Sutcliffe being named on 5 January. He was in fact
charged and the Council has seen nothing which suggests that his defence was prejudiced by the
publication of his name.
10.15 There can be circumstances in which the naming of a person suspected of a crime may be in
itself unfair quite apart from whether or not it is prejudicial to his subsequent trial. The Council has
considered with care that possibility in this case. It has concluded, with a hindsight denied to editors
making up their minds that night, that the publication of his name was not in itself unfair to
Mr Sutcliffe.
Publication of Pictures
10.16 At least two newspapers published (one of them very prominently) a close-up, though blurred,
photograph of Mr Sutcliffe during the period when he was being questioned and before he had been
charged. In the past newspapers have generally refrained from publishing pictures of an accused
person in such circumstances because of the danger of prejudicing any issue of identification at the
eventual trial. The explanation given to the Council by the editor of The Standard for his newspaper's
publication of the photograph in this case was that the police gave guidance to the newspapers that
Mr Sutcliffe had confessed and that identification would not be in dispute. Two hours later, the
Council has been told, the police announced that the accused man's features would form part of the
prosecution case. In the Press Council's view it is dangerous and unsatisfactory for newspapers to
rely on statements by the police or by the prosecution that identification will not be an issue in a
trial. For the police to issue guidance of this type and for newspapers to act upon it may be to close
an option which should be open to the defence. The only opinion to the effect that identification would
not be an issue which might properly free newspapers to publish pre-trial photographs would be an
opinion from those defending the accused given after they have had an opportunity of taking full
instructions and considering what the defence of the accused man is. In other circumstances
publication of a photograph of an accused man before his trial is in the Press Council's view
potentially prejudicial. Clearly different considerations arise where for example, a photograph
of a criminal or suspect criminal who is at large is published at the request of the police in order to
aid capture. (That was the position with Gerard Tuite whose case was cited by the editor of The
Guardian-- and the council rejects the parallel which the editor seeks to draw).
10.17 It follows that it was wrong of the New Standard to have published the picture in the first place
and furthermore that it should have taken immediate steps to withdraw the picture from publication
as soon as it learned from Supt Morritt that the man's features would form part of the prosecution's
case. Similar considerations apply to the publication of a similar picture in the Evening Despatch,
Darlington.
10.18 The suggestion by both newspapers that the pictures which they decided to publish were too
indistinct or out of date to pose any danger is an unconvincing, and unappealing, argument.
10.19 The geographical argument that it was safe for the New Standard to publish the picture
because its circulation was such that its readers would not include jurors is in the Council's view
unconvincing and dangerous. Copies of the New Standard do find their way to Yorkshire and also
into the hands of people from Yorkshire visiting London: in the event the trial of Mr Sutcliffe was
transferred from Yorkshire to the Central Criminal Court which is in the heart of the New Standards
circulation area.
Circumstances of Arrest
10.20 Newspapers made free use of descriptions, obtained from the police, of the circumstances of
Mr Sutcliffe's detention--notably the fact that when detained he was with a woman (whom some
newspapers identified as a prostitute) in a parked car in a red light district in Sheffield. The publication
of such detail at an early stage could certainly be prejudicial to a fair trial or prejudice public
confidence in a fair trial, and the Press Council does not think that such detail should have been
published in this case. It was a well-known fact that many of the Ripper's victims had been
prostitutes.
10.21 In the Press Council's view it was wrong to publish at that stage and in that detail, for instance,
what the Daily Express published about Miss Denise Hall (the girl who according to the story
rejected Peter Sutcliffe's advances) and her friend Miss Olivia Reivers (the girl who got into his car
and was with him when he was arrested). Its story "And the girls who met a stranger" reads like the
evidence they might have been expected to give in court, and publication of that story was likely to
diminish public faith in an unprejudiced trial on the evidence put in court.
10.22 The paper's story "Carnival time in red-light areas" clearly implied the assumption evident in
the attitude of the police and in this and other newspapers' treatment of the events of that weekend
that the Ripper had been caught and there was no doubt of the guilt of the man who by then had
been charged and remanded.
Police Jubilation
10.23 The press understandably gave vast publicity to the apparently unrestrained and unconcealed
delight of the police who made clear they believed they had caught the Ripper. This conduct was in
sharp contrast to the customary behaviour of the police in advance of a verdict of guilty and on this
occasion took place even before the man had been charged. However understandable their jubilation
may have been there is no doubt that it was potentially highly prejudicial to public faith in a fair
trial. Not only did their announcements imperil a fair trial, so did the conduct of the three senior
policemen who posed for press photographs beaming with satisfaction.
Potential Witnesses: The Police
10.24 The risk of prejudice was greatly increased by the holding of further press conferences and
photo-calls by the police during the period between detention and charge. Whether or not it would
ultimately prejudice consideration by a jury, it was potentially highly prejudicial to faith in a fair trial
for the stories of the two officers who detained Mr Sutcliffe to be given to the press and reported in
advance of his appearing in court. The two policemen were presented to the press and by the press
as conquering heroes. This would have been justifiable after a guilty verdict was returned against
the man they had detained but was wholly undesirable and prejudicial at any stage before
then.
Potential Witnesses: The Prostitutes
10.25 Whatever the intention and however strong the alleged pressures the Press Council is
surprised that the police should have countenanced the holding, following Mr Sutcliffe's first
court appearance, of a press conference in a police station by two women who were clearly likely
to be witnesses--one of them the woman who was with the accused when he was detained. The
Council considers that it was potentially highly prejudicial for the press to have published the
comments and evidence of the two women at that stage.
Stories out of Court
10.26 There were some obvious immediate dangers in the holding and reporting of this press
conference and of the one given by the two arresting officers. Whatever care was taken no-one
could be certain what those taking part in the press conferences would say and whether they
would let fall some piece of information they were not intending to reveal, and which might have
been prejudicial to a fair trial. More importantly, the reporting of the two press conferences could
not fail to leave an impression that witnesses were telling there the stories which one would have
expected them to tell on oath in court where they would be subject to the strict rules governing the
giving of evidence. The public would certainly and properly expect, for example, the two police
officers' account of Mr Sutcliffe's apprehension to be given first by sworn testimony in court and
not in out-of-court statements to journalists. There was the danger, too, that the evidence the
officers and the two women eventually might be called upon to give in court could have been
coloured by their examination by the press at those press conferences.
The Police Press Conferences
10.27 As the editor of The Guardian appreciated in his comments to the Council, at the heart of the
early stages of this matter were the press conferences held by the police. Once the decision to
report these--and particularly the first one held in West Yorkshire--had been taken, much of the other
coverage by newspapers followed naturally, including the listing of the thirteen victims and the
publication of their photographs. It is not unusual for the police to hold press conferences during
their investigation of a murder. What was unusual in this case was what was said at the press
conferences and the manner of it.
Editorial Responsibility
10.28 Some editors have laid responsibility for the style of newspaper (and other media) coverage
on the release of material by the police and the atmosphere of jubilation at the first press conference.
There is no doubt that the release of material by the police made that coverage possible and their
atmosphere of jubilation encouraged the coverage, but the responsibility for what is published by
newspapers must lie with their editors, not with their news sources. The Council has had to ask itself,
as editors had to ask themselves, whether the press was right to report those press conferences, and
particularly the first one. There can be no complaint by the police that their press conferences were
reported and newspapers were unlikely to have complained at the time that the police should not have
held press conferences in the way they did, but the police and the press have a responsibility
outside the responsibility they have to each other: it is, as the Council makes clear elsewhere in
this Report, a duty to be fair even outside the strict bounds of the law.
10.29 Suppose (by way of example only) that at the first police press conference a police spokesman
had said: "I am happy to announce that we have caught the Yorkshire Ripper. His name is Peter
William Sutcliffe and he lives at Garden Lane, Bradford. He is the man who committed the thirteen
murders. He is now in police custody. He will be charged tomorrow." Should the media have reported
these statements? In our opinion such statements would have grossly prejudiced the prospects of a
fair trial for Mr Sutcliffe and the media should have declined to give publicity to them.
10.30 If this is right it then becomes a question of judgement whether what was actually said at the
first police press conference, taken in the context of the smiling faces and the atmosphere of
euphoria, was calculated to produce the same impression on the mind as if the words in our example
had been spoken. The critical expressions used were: "...this man is now detained here in West
Yorkshire and he is being questioned in relation to the Yorkshire Ripper murders. It is anticipated that
he will appear before the court in Dewsbury tomorrow.... I can tell you that we are absolutely delighted
with developments at this stage, absolutely delighted"; the chief constable's answer "Right" when
asked "Are you scaling down the operation with the general hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper from this
moment on?" and his reference to the "two outstanding police officers", who detained the man. They
had, said Mr Gregory, "my heartfelt thanks". It is true that Mr Sutcliffe's name was not mentioned.
Nevertheless, in the Council's view, the overwhelming impression that would have been left on the
mind of the ordinary person who saw or heard everything that transpired at the conference would
have been that the police now held the Yorkshire Ripper and would formally charge him (and reveal
his identity) the next day.
10.31 Apart from the very important and unfortunate public effect of what was said, done and
reported in this case the Council is concerned at a difficulty to which such conduct may give rise
inside newspaper offices. What the Press Council believes were errors of judgement on the part of
the police in respect of the press conferences they held and the statements they made may make
harder in future the jobs of editors in complying with the law and following and enforcing proper
ethical standards. In the nature of the press, while an editor is encouraging his staff to more
vigorous investigation and news gathering, he also has to play a restraining role in the interests of
fairness, sometimes unpopularly having to curb the enthusiasm of his reporters and news editors.
The editor who tries to do that finds his position undermined if he can be told that the material which
he holds to be sub judice, in contempt or unfair was provided by the police at a police press
conference. The next time he may well be less likely to try to restrain his staff's enthusiasm.
10.32 There is a moral duty to be considered by a newspaper editor before reporting in the context
of a murder inquiry before anyone has been convicted, what The Guardian's editor has described
as the police "claim to success". That, it seems to the Council, was a point at which the press had
a duty to step back before reporting and consider fairness and the impact such a story would make
before reporting.
Linking The Suspect With The Crime
10.33 The most serious problem for newspapers and other reporting the case at the stage after
Mr Sutcliffe's arrest and before his appearance in court was, as the editor of the Daily Mirror said, how
to identify to the public the important case in which he had been detained. There is no wholly
satisfactory answer to the question. The best answer must be that the public interest in whoever is
detained having a fair trial remains paramount.
10.34 Accepting that nothing ought to have been published which was likely to prejudice a fair trial,
the Press Council is driven to the conclusion that virtually nothing ought to have been published of
what was said, or was apparent from the atmosphere, at the main West Yorkshire police press
conference.
10.35 Much of what was said at and reported from that press conference significantly extended the
danger there was to a fair trial in this case. It would have been better had that press conference never
been held. The Press Council hopes profoundly that such a conference will never be held again.
10.36 The answer to the question the editor of the Daily Mirror--and all other editors--faced that day
is that the public interest would have been served best by newspapers identifying the case, without
giving details, and reporting only that a man had been detained and would appear in court on a
serious charge.
Background--For Use Later
10.37 The Council considered whether the publication at this stage in early January of background
material about the accused from his employer, his work-mates, and his neighbours was prejudicial.
It finds that this publication, too, violated the presumption of innocence and was potentially prejudicial
at that time. At this point the Press Council is not commenting on the means used to obtain
background material about a crime or a criminal but on the effect that publishing such material may
have, however it has been obtained. The tone in which such material was written and the frequent use
of the past tense ("Peter Sutcliffe was...") all tended to confirm that the mysterious Ripper had been
exposed at last.
10.38 In criminal cases which arouse great public interest it has long been the custom of the press
and broadcasting organisations to collect as soon as possible background material about someone
accused of the crime but not to publish it unless and until the person concerned has been found
guilty. The Council believes that practice to be perfectly fair, subject to the proviso the Council made
in 1966 about the questioning of witnesses in committal proceedings. It avoids the heavy potential
prejudice there was in the publication of background material about the accused in this case before
a charge had even been laid.
Recapitulation of the Crimes
10.39 Most newspapers carried prominently details of the victims of the Yorkshire Ripper and
some carried very prominently photographs of the thirteen women and girls. After careful
consideration the Press Council has concluded that given the announcement that a man was
being questioned in connection with the Ripper case, it cannot say that publication of
the names and details, and even of the photographs, of victims was itself prejudicial. However
the manner of their publication, the style of presentation and the impact they and other material
taken together were likely to have upon readers has yet to be considered.
Generally Unfair and Prejudicial
10.40 Overall, what the Council most criticises and finds to have been highly and inexcusably
prejudicial and unfair was the composite general impression created in most newspapers by the
publication of some or all of these matters, their tone and their display. The general impression left
was that the man who had been detained, even though he had not then been charged, was
beyond doubt the killer of the thirteen women and girls and that a trial was no more than a formality.
(NOTE: Source (used by permission): The Press Council, "Press Conduct In The Sutcliffe Case" )