News

Jury told not to watch BBC documentary on Royals and the Press

19/02/2015

Newspaper
✕ Press claim

✓ The truth

Reach
Up to
people misled
Help us fight back

Join 71,384 others who are taking action to share the truth & raise standards in the press

1. Share the truth
Post this rebuttal on social media
2. Fund the fightback
Help us challenge more stories like this
Donate
3. Tell your MP
Send a ready-written email in 30 seconds
Email your MP

A jury was told not to watch a TV programme and a journalist agreed he didn't think it mattered that a source was a serving soldier at London's Old Bailey today.

Mr Justice Saunders, who is presiding over the trial of four Sun journalists, an army officer and his wife, told the jury that if they watched a BBC documentary about the media and the royal family they could be held in contempt of court and potentially be sent to prison. The programme "Reinventing the Royals" being broadcast on BBC 2 on Thursday is billed as a "two-part series about the twenty-year battle between the monarchy and the media over personal privacy and public image". This has caused concern in the court room as at it coincides with evidence being given by Sun royal editor Duncan Larcombe, who is facing charges over allegations that he paid an army officer for information about and pictures of Princes William and Harry while they were cadets at Sandhurst military college.

The judge told the jury that although he had not seen the documentary there was a chance that matters relating to the trial might be discussed. As there would be no possibility of the defence challenging anything said on television in court he had to take the matter very seriously. He therefore gave the jury a written direction not to watch the programme, avoid any media coverage of it and inform the bailiff if any of their number admitted they had watched it.

Later in the day Larcombe gave evidence in his own defence, and asked if it mattered that his source for a number of stories was a serving soldier replied "not in my mind, no". He also testified that "If you were a source for the Sun you were always taking a risk", saying people could be shunned or sacked for speaking to the paper. He also denied that he ever thought Hardy was committing a criminal offence or obtaining the picture was a betrayal of his public duty as he believed all of the information obtained, including a picture of Prince William in a bikini was "in the public interest".

Appearing in court with Larcombe are former Sun chief reporter John Kay, army officer John Hardy, his wife Claire, Sun deputy editor Geoffrey Webster and executive editor Fergus Shanahan.

All of the defendants deny all of the charges, the trial continues.

Hacked Off is funded by supporters, not newspaper owners. Help us take this to Parliament: give £10 a month.

Give £10 a month

Download the full report:

Download report

Queries: campaign@hackinginquiry.org

related Posts

Coverage of Professor Arday was not legitimate: the letter The Times refused to publish
Guest blog: Professor Paul Wragg replies to the letter published in The Times on 25 August defending the press coverage of Professor Jason Arday. The Times declined to publish his reply. We publish it here in full.
8/28/26
News
Defensive, evasive & hypocritical: The press reaction to the death of Jason Arday
The reaction of national newspapers to the death of Professor Jason Arday has exposed a brittle defensiveness at the heart of the press, and a determination to remain outside any meaningful accountability.
8/26/26
News
When media abuse of academics becomes the norm in HE
Following the death of Jason Arday, Corinne Fowler writes on the toll of media abuse on academics and what universities must do to protect their staff.
8/19/26
News
IPSO ties itself in knots over Telegraph complaint
Media lawyer Jonathan Coad complained to IPSO about a Telegraph article claiming Hacked Off wants "state control" of the press. IPSO's response contradicted itself within the space of a few paragraphs.
8/14/26
News