Criticising Portuguese system will not help find Madeleine

Published on Thursday 10 May 2007 01:01

THE media reaction to the abduction of three-year-old Madeleine McCann causes me some unease. Not the fact that the story is being covered in the depth that it has been. That is, in itself, justified by the immense human interest in such a situation. It is simply not possible to imagine what Madeleine's parents must be going through. My unease comes from the media's attack on the Portuguese investigation.

The saturation of news coverage in a story such as this leads to the media trying to find a new angle to the story every day and, with 24-hour news coverage, that is not an easy task. All the more so when the story does not appear to be developing.

On Tuesday, with no significant changes, the media turned its attention to the Portuguese police's handling of the case. That criticism appeared to stem from the fact that the police investigating the abduction had refused to give out information about any possible suspects. With no information to keep the story developing, the natural enemy became the organisation that was refusing to give them information.

That, of course, is to fail to recognise that all criminal cases in Portugal are governed by the law of judicial secrecy, which means that, once a criminal investigation is under way, police cannot reveal anything about that investigation, including details about potential suspects. The purpose is to protect the integrity of any future trial.

The way that the system operates in the UK is that the police inform the media formally by press statement or press conference or informally through individual journalists' use of police contacts. The media are drip-fed lines by what is normally reported as "a police insider". Normally, money will pass for information.

Strictly speaking, in most cases that is information that should not be available to the public. If an individual is arrested by the police then there are only a limited number of people who will know that fact. It is unlikely that the accused will want to publicise the fact that he is under suspicion.

In most cases, the journalist will have been tipped off by someone within the police. One just needs to think back to the Soham murders to remember a prime example of pre-arrest media saturation that could ultimately have influenced the trial.

And who is to say that the Portuguese system - one used throughout continental Europe - is not the right one? It may not be media-friendly, but does that make it flawed? The system is a throwback to 1960s Scotland, where the courts made it clear that when a crime was suspected and when the criminal authorities were investigating it, they and they alone had the duty of carrying out that investigation.

If the media went snooping about, speaking to potential witnesses or visiting the crime scene, then they ran the risk of being guilty of contempt of court.

Things have moved on a bit in Scotland since the 1960s. The media are restrained by what they can publish by legislation but, even with the strictures of the Contempt of Court Act, there is always some wiggle room. And the media not unsurprisingly wont to wiggle as far as they can each time.

Only time will tell whether the Portuguese authorities have performed well. But to criticise their system just because it differs from a UK system that is itself deeply flawed is not the way to help anyone.