NOT AGAIN! ‘EU Judges’ Behind ‘Victory For Evil’, Says Sun

10 July 2013 by

the_sun_gotcha21Updated – headline now corrected | Remember when The Sun was reprimanded by the Press Complaints Commission for muddling up the European Union and our local Court of Appeal in a story about a human rights judgment? You probably should because it happened just two weeks ago.

Well, despite telling the PCC that they would incorporate the issue into its staff training programme, The Sun has been at it again following yesterday’s European Court of Human Rights ruling on whole life sentences. The politics section of its website currently shows this on the sidebar:

Screen Shot 2013-07-10 at 13.21.31

And its Twitter feed (361,338 followers) shows this, when you click yesterday’s tweet:

Screen Shot 2013-07-10 at 13.29.15

The story itself is fine, in the sense that it correctly identifies the judges behind the ‘victory for evil’ as being those in the European Court of Human Rights, not the European Union. I understand that the physical paper version was also fine.

It is worth reminding ourselves of why the PCC reprimanded The Sun for the last mix up:

It is an important role of newspapers and magazines to publicise and analyse judicial rulings, but this public interest is served only insofar as such reports inform rather than mislead. While a headline, by its nature, can only ever summarise, it was inaccurate for the subheadline of the article to have attributed to the European Union responsibility for a decision by domestic courts based on the European Convention on Human Rights… This is a clear failure to take appropriate care over the accuracy of the coverage and a breach of the Editors Code, which was particularly significant at a time when the roles of both the EU and the Convention were a matter of major public debate.

Anyway, there it is. Plus ca change. In my post about the PCC ruling I offered The Sun to provide some training for them on these issues, and repeated that offer in an email to the management. I have as yet had no response.

If you would like to complain to the PCC,  just click here.

Update, 18:28 – The headline has now been corrected, after I tweeted The Sun’s Political Editor.

Screen Shot 2013-07-10 at 18.27.01

Sign up to free human rights update s by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

6 comments


  1. Can we really be sure this was merely an editorial error ?

    It would appear to be part of a pernicious campaign to use the public’s scepticism of the EU to abolish, one of the few remaining checks the individual has on the state,,the Human Rights Act 98 .

    We need to guard against such manipulation, and this shows vigilance of the media is the only way.

  2. James Wilson says:

    Not that I’m defending the Sun, but just wondering if I’m correct in remembering that the infamous Gotcha headline was before they realised the Belgrano had been sunk and the consequent loss of life (you can see from the headline that they only reported “holed cruiser”)?

  3. Theo Hopkins says:

    Adam,

    I am an occasional reader of this blog and a total legal amateur. But from time to time I write letters to my local newspaper (Western Morning News, Devon and Cornwall) defending human rights or correcting gross misunderstanding of the issues. These are in response to the welter of letters opposing human rights written from a Daily Mail/UKIP perspective. My own letters are usually published.

    I would really like you to use a blog post to simply defend human rights against the assumptions in a deluge of letters that say “What about the rights of victims?”, that I myself could then use in letters in reply to the “victims” thingy. (Indeed, often the “victim” thing occurs in comments on this blog such as the recent post on whole life tariffs). OK, I understand that victims have their right looked after by the fact that nasty murderers are in jail, but there must be more in reply than this.

    (I would have sent you an email to yourself on this issue but I don’t have your email address short of asking the Guardian.)

    Theo H

  4. Amit Malik says:

    It appears as if ‘The Sun’ is on some kind of a personal vendetta against judges. Albeit, it is entirely a subjective and personal opinion; however, it is beyond my comprehension, why, otherwise, the newspaper will go after judges who are bound by nothing else but justice and are the protectors of people’s freedom and rights?

    A complaint with PCC must be launched!

  5. forcedadoption says:

    I don’t know what the fuss is about.The European Court only demands a periodical review and there is nothing to stop the review board deciding that certain prisoners should remain in prison……….

  6. Abi says:

    The BBC also reported it incorrectly, as the CJEU instead of the ECtHR.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: