appConfigEntityId

bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

isVideo

articlePageQuery

article

articleSchemaContent

content

hooksArticlePageAdvertisementConfigArticle

appConfig

filter

json

liveArticle

The attention of the world’s media is once again on Hong Kong after the story of a gruesome double murder in Wan Chai broke over the weekend.
British banker Rurik Jutting, 29, appeared in court on Monday where he stands accused of murdering two women, the bodies of whom were found at his upscale apartment early on Saturday morning. He did not enter a plea.
The case shocked many in Hong Kong, which has a deserved reputation for being safe and relatively crime-free, and was quickly picked up by international media and shared widely on social media.
Watch: British banker in court over grisly Hong Kong double murder

Global attention to the case means it may become more than just a gory murder, but an important test of Hong Kong’s restrictive laws on what can and cannot be reported on a pending court case in the internet age.
“Hong Kong inherited the UK’s more restrictive approach to the coverage of ongoing court cases,” Doreen Weisenhaus, director of the media law project at Hong Kong University’s Journalism and Media Studies Centre, told the South China Morning Post.
“The presumption is that too much public information about the case would jeopardise a defendant’s right to a fair trial by prejudicing a potential jury.”

These restrictions can even include statements made by the defendant themselves.
Last year, the Apple Daily newspaper was charged with contempt of court after it published a video interview with Henry Chau Hoi-leung, who was accused of murdering and dismembering his parents, in which he spoke freely about the case.
“The government fully respects the freedom of the press,” a spokesman for the Department of Justice said at the time, adding that the government “took the view that it is necessary to commence contempt of court proceedings [against Apple Daily] to protect the solemnity of the criminal justice system.”
This was not the first time the paper had been prosecuted for its reporting on criminal cases. In 2000, the paper was fined HK$100,000 for claiming that a man on trial for the murder of a young boy was a paedophile, leading to the dismissal of the jury.
Though the defendant did indeed have previous convictions for sexual molestation, this evidence was not presented at trial, and the newspaper was found to be in contempt. The man was later convicted at a second trial and sentenced to life in prison.
“The media in Hong Kong are under many restrictions, especially once a case has appeared in court,” Weisenhaus said.
Robert Clark, a partner at legal firm Deacons and expert in media law, said that “the bizarre nature of our laws is that there is a lot of freedom, and people pay no attention to contempt at the arrest and charge stage of the proceedings.”
When committal proceedings – which decide whether there is sufficient evidence to require the defendant to stand trial – begin however, the restrictions come into force and all but the most careless publications stick to reporting only that which is revealed in court.
“The law could be updated and clarified and made more certain for all concerned,” Clark said. “Particularly this anomaly between freedom to report anything pre-charge and pre-committal and the very, very restrictive situation afterwards.”
Application of the law becomes more confused when a case is covered by publications with no presence in Hong Kong, and therefore no obligation to abide by the city’s laws.
With overseas media reachable at the click of a mouse, that problem is not confined to Hong Kong. For example, years of restrained reporting by the British press on the country’s royal family was tested in 2012 with the publication of topless photos of Prince William’s wife Kate in a French magazine, which were then shared on social media.

In 2011, British courts issued gagging orders whose own existence could not be published, preventing the press from even acknowledging that they were being prevented from reporting on something.
After widespread outrage over these so-called “super injunctions”, details of the orders were shared widely on non-UK hosted websites, particularly Twitter, and in the foreign press.
The Sun newspaper began reporting around a number of injunctions taken out against it, omitting details it was legally barred from publishing. One story in particular, about a married footballer taking out an injunction to prevent reports on an extramarital affair he was having with his brother’s wife, went viral on Twitter, with hundreds of users identifying the player as Ryan Giggs. This was also reported in foreign media.
A British MP then used parliamentary privilege to name Giggs in the House of Commons, saying that 75,000 people had already identified him on Twitter, effectively breaking the injunction and permitting British media to report on the case.

The difficulties of imposing restrictions on what is reported on social media were highlighted again last year, during the trial of Lostprophets singer Ian Watkins and two female fans for multiple child sex offences.
UK law prevented the British press from reporting the identities of Watkins’ co-defendants, who provided their children to him to abuse, in order to protect those children from future consequences.
While police had previously warned on social media against posting details of the defendants, many Twitter users – including the late Peaches Geldof – shared the women’s names widely. Though many people deleted their tweets after it was pointed out to them they could be held in contempt of court.
After the case, British attorney general Dominic Grieve began publishing legal warnings online to steer Twitter users away from prejudicial comments that might be found in contempt of court.
While the Hong Kong courts have shown themselves more than willing to punish publications which flout restrictions, the Wan Chai double murder case may prove to be the first major test of the contempt law in the social media age, in which it is more difficult than ever to prevent a jury from learning potentially prejudicial information.
Hong Kong media are also facing a situation where they may find themselves unable to report things that are being widely discussed by foreign publications and on Twitter and Facebook.


November 1, 2014: Expat banker Rurik Jutting arrested over murder of 2 women

Hong Kong barrister Gerard McCoy, who liked a challenge and defended dissidents and murderers, dies aged 63

British double murderer Rurik Jutting has appeal bid dismissed by Hong Kong’s top court

British double murderer Rurik Jutting loses bid to take appeal to Hong Kong’s top court

Rurik Jutting

Wan Chai double murder case highlights Hong Kong’s strict court reporting laws

Rurik Jutting is charged with the murder of two women whose bodies were found in his Wan Chai apartment. Photo: Bloomberg

Henry Chau is escorted by police officers in May 2013. Chau is accused of murdering and dismembering his parents. A new trial is scheduled for February next year. Photo: Felix Wong

Former Manchester United footballer Ryan Giggs took out a super-injunction to prevent reporting on his extramarital affair. Photo: AFP

Lostprophets singer Ian Watkins. Last year Watkins was found guilty of multiple sex offences against children, but his co-defendants were not named in the press. Photo: Reuters

News

Hong Kong

Law and Crime