OJ Simpson book raises questions over earnings

Published on Thursday 23 November 2006 01:51

AND the winner of this year's "What on earth were you thinking?" award goes to Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation. The reason for such an honour was a proposed book and TV interview with OJ Simpson, in which he was to give an account of how, had he been guilty, he might have murdered his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman.

The problem is that, while Simpson may have left court a free man, it is widely accepted the proposed book should have been better titled How I Did It rather than If I Did It. Despite it being 11 years since that famous media trial, it would seem the American public are not prepared to forgive, even if Simpson professes his innocence.

Murdoch apologised to the American public for what he described as "an ill-considered project". I doubt it will ever be resurrected, but just imagine what would have happened had such a situation arisen in the UK. Simpson's situation is not unique so far as the UK's media is concerned. There are cases where the media do go out on a limb and question the innocence of someone acquitted of a crime. It may be a risky strategy with possible defamation consequences, but it happens.

Take, for example, Scotland's highest-profile not proven verdict. It concerned the case of Francis Auld and the murder of Amanda Duffy, a drama student. Duffy, 19, was found dead at a car park in Hamilton in May 1992. Her best friend, Angela Clacy, said she last saw Duffy alive with Auld on the night she was murdered. In June 1995, Duffy's parents were awarded 50,000 after they raised a civil action against Auld in the Court of Session.

Likewise, Simpson was later found responsible for the deaths in a civil trial and ordered to pay $33.5 million in restitution to the victims' families. If Auld put pen to paper, there would be nothing to stop him. Duffy's relatives would have an uphill struggle to persuade the courts to stop the book being published. After all, in the eyes of the court he has committed no crime.

Through prison rules, what the law can do is curtail the rights of those behind bars from publishing. To date, when the courts have looked at prisoners attempting to publish books, they have balanced the public outrage that would ensue with the prisoners' right to freedom of expression. Arguably, the courts have gone too far. A blanket ban that contains no flexibility on what prisoners can publish about their crimes is by its nature a restriction on freedom of expression. Further, while victims' rights are inevitably required to be taken into account, that does not sit well with the European court's decisions on the scope of freedom of expression.

Despite clamours to extend the terms of the proceeds of crime legislation to bring those such as Jeffrey Archer (who published his prison diary) under the regime, the law doesn't stop those who have been acquitted or released from prison from publishing.

Perhaps, if a change in the law is required, there is where it lies.