Hi My past posts have shown that if the "system" has an agenda then "justice" can / will / and is applied differently to meet the aims of the "agenda"!
My only luck has been my "photo" has never been released and I always went to great care when appearing at Court to spot the "photographers.

Yes I had some luck but not as lucky as those with the 'AGENDA'

Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------

This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.

I was lucky that there was no media coverage of my case. I was lucky with the timing as there was the general election result and a massive case in the court next to me. The local papers wanted to cover those events.

I did lose my job and my life is completely different. My partner stood by me but I got a sentence of 28 Months. Only the other week I was reading a case which was virtually identical to mine and the person got a 12 week suspended sentence and kept his job. It is not just the unfairness of the media it also the unfairness of sentencing sometimes....this other person looks like he committed a much lesser offence than me when in fact the cases appear identical

I agree with you 100%. I personally have suffered disproportionately from this. I got front page coverage (in two local papers!) for a sentence of 2 years probation and undertaking a course (the 5 years SOR was an automatic minimum once it went to court).

But the judicial system has always assumed that cases will be reported, and the principle still is that anyone can go to a sentence hearing and as long as they report things as they happened in court. That is how English (including Wales), and also Scottish and Northern Irish justice, works. That the bottom has fallen out of the market for local papers doesn't change that. 

It's the randomness of the reporting that is the issue, because not every case does get reported. If you could be certain that every single case was going to appear in the papers, that would be a level playing field.

Journalists have always been allowed in to court. You have to assume that a case will be reported. The justice system does not pro-actively pass information to local papers. The way it works, is that journalists make a request for information from the court and police. They do this in the basis of a value judgement of news worthiness. They are not fed it. No-one was there for my magistrates court hearing. No-one for my PPTP. The local papers had obviously seen the listing for my sentence hearing. It is how it has always been. Whether I liked it or not, I was "newsworthy" in a way that "Local McDonalds Worker" probably wasn't.

There is a reasonable argument that the ubiquitiness of the internet has meant that the days of going through decades of microfiche in a local library has been superseded by Google, and therefore the "chip paper" factor has altered but the fundamental principle has not changed. Matters mentioned in open court can be reported.

I agree it's less about the press reporting the case, it's more about the after-effects of doing so.
Not only is the reporting a lottery, but the sentencing can be a lottery too (although granted we don't know every detail of every case) so there's a huge spectrum of consequences for, as to what the original post is about, the exact same offence. For some that's just insurmountable, especially those aren't here to tell the tale, and there needs to be accountability there - it can be a death by a thousand cuts but when others are having much, much different experiences, that goes further than being "just unfair".

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.

That was similar to my experience. Some quotes were read out about me in court which were factually untrue and/or were taken completely out of context which were then corrected in court by my solicitor. The local paper decided to omit the corrections and just ran with the initial quotes, one of which made the headline of their report. I guess I should be flattered that someone went to all that trouble of twisting stuff about me in order to make a quick buck..?

Like you though, I could've went to them and gotten them to correct it but the Streisand Effect jumped in my mind immediately and thought it'd likely be a lot worse than if I just left it.

I think one of the biggest issues these days relating to media reporting compared to what it was say 20+ years ago is the longevity of it .By that I mean, if my case was reported on in say 1991, good lucky finding information about that easily in 1992. You'd have to put in a bit of effort to actively seek out. Nowadays I can just punch my name into Google and boom, there it is. "Today's news is tomorrow's fish and chip papers" I believe the quote is...

also the case getting publicity is part of the justice system on the basis that the justice system allows journalists in court and also passes info to local papers.

"I don't think it's down to the justice system to take it into account whether one case will get more publicity than another."

But it is a function of the justice system, to determine the punishment for an offence and to take into account various factors, when setting the punishment. That's why sentencing varies so much, even when the offence is the same. It is down to the aggravating and mitigating factors, in each case.

When it comes to trial by media exposure though, there is no accounting for any mitigation, it is just a case of good or bad luck, as to whether your particular case gets picked up and publicised, or not. But because the media publicity has an indirect effect on the level of punishment, where SO are concerned, far more than for any other crime, then it really, really matters, if your case gets covered in the media, because it can determine if your life is ruined or not. 

My argument is that the ruination of somebody's life, should not be left to pure luck. It would be like the judge tossing a coin and saying "Heads I send you to prison, tails, I let you go". That's not justice.

Whether you are reported in the media is not a function of the justice system. Even just a decade ago, local papers would sent reporters to their local courts and report everything down to fines for littering. In some areas, they still do, but it's the decimation of the local press that has led to the unevenness of reporting, not a function of the legal process. In many cases, even in serious cases, unless Court News syndicates a story it will quite often not be reported. 

I was reported in the media. The story was incorrect, but used words said in open court were protected by qualified privileged i.e. the local papers had not misreported or libelled me. I could have asserted a right to correct the record, but I thought the Streisand Effect would be worse. I still think I was right in that respect.

I don't think it's down to the justice system to take it into account whether one case will get more publicity than another. Part of the sentencing remarks mentioned my loss of good character. Whether I liked it or not, this was a fair comment. Yes, it would be fairer if all cases were reported, but verdicts are given in open court. Anyone can publish the details. It's how open justice works.