Liberty warning over terror comments

The first casualty in war is truth, it is often said - but some believe that in the wider war on terrorism the first victim is justice.

After the high-profile media coverage of the arrests of terrorist suspects in London, Manchester and Dorset, many readers, viewers and listeners may already assume the individuals are guilty.

The human rights group Liberty thinks the media reporting has overstepped the mark, and is blaming politicians, the police and security services for fuelling a media frenzy of lurid coverage.

Its supporters claim the sheer weight of reporting, and the speculative nature of it, mean those arrested will find it very hard to get a fair trial.

Al-Qaeda 'link'

They point to statements by the prime minister and home secretary, such as these comments by Tony Blair in the Commons:

"It reminds us of the threat which international terrorism poses here in Britain. We must make sure that these groups of fanatics - who have no compunction in taking human life and who have no demands that any political system could accede to - are defeated".

David Blunkett has also made the link between the raids and arrests and the threat from al-Qaeda.

"In combating this threat, we rely on the bravery and commitment of police officers and security services in defending us against dangerous criminals and those who would threaten the very safety of our country."

It is the job of the Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith to deal with contempt of court.

Recently, he has been active in this area, issuing warnings about the coverage of the murders in Soham and prosecuting the Sunday Mirror over an article that caused the collapse of the first trial of the Leeds footballers.

The Attorney General's office said he was monitoring the situation closely and would not hesitate to take action under the contempt of court act.

Impossible position

But Liberty's director, John Wadham, thinks he should now issue clear guidelines on how terrorist arrests should be covered - or even hand over his responsibility to the courts.

He says he does not doubt the Attorney General's integrity, but believes his position as a government minister puts him in an impossible position in this highly political situation.

"We need to have a better system - someone else, perhaps the courts themselves, stopping this outrageous use of rumours, innuendos and links - which may lead to miscarriages of justice and innocent people going to prison."

But Bob Satchwell, from the Society of Editors, says it is nonsense to suggest newspapers are riding roughshod over the rules.

"By the time things get to trial, the coverage is forgotten and juries take their duties very seriously," he says.

"What you have to balance is the right of individuals to have a fair trial and the rights of the wider public to be informed. It's far more dangerous - and leads to greater speculation - if you don't report the information."