The Guardian Legal Correspondent

In a November 2018 Guardian article, Luke Harding and Dan Collyn cited anonymous sources claiming that Donald Trump`s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, held secret meetings with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2013, 2015 and 2016. [132] The name of a third author, Fernando Villavicencio, was removed from the online version of the story shortly after its publication. The title of the story was originally: “Manafort had secret conversations with Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy.” Within hours of the post, “Sources Say” was added to the headline, and the meeting became an “apparent meeting.” [133] One journalist called the story: “If true, this could be the biggest victory of this year. If that`s wrong, it could be the biggest slip. Both Manafort and Assange have denied dating him and have threatened legal action against The Guardian. [134] The Ecuadorian consul in London, Fidel Narváez, who worked at the Ecuadorian embassy in London from 2010 to July 2018, denied that Manafort`s visits took place. [133] Serge Halimi said Harding had a personal complaint against Assange, noting that Manafort`s name did not appear in the Ecuadorian embassy`s guestbook and that there were no photos of Manafort entering or leaving “one of the most watched and filmed buildings in the world.” [133] In October 2009, The Guardian reported that it was forbidden to report on a parliamentary question – a question that was recorded on the Order Paper of the House of Commons and to which a minister was to respond later that week. [115] The newspaper noted that it was “forbidden to tell its readers why the newspaper – for the first time since its memory – is prevented from reporting on Parliament. Legal obstacles that cannot be identified include procedures that cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client that must remain secret. But Whitehall`s briefings are a thing of the past: when the Ministry of Justice moved into its current building, staff found a room specially equipped for broadcasting press conferences. It must have been more than a decade since it was used for this purpose by a Lord Chancellor.

But the response to my work – on all platforms – convinces me that there are still many non-lawyers who want to understand legal developments. You don`t have to be a lawyer to know that some people in government are trying to take advantage of the law, break constitutional conventions, or restrict our freedoms. And as long as people want to know how the law works, there will be academics, practitioners, bloggers and journalists trying to explain it to them. For more information, please contact: “I am delighted to welcome Haroon to the Scott Trust Board of Directors as Director of Journalism. His experience as a journalist and his in-depth knowledge of the legal, business and financial worlds will be very enriching for the Trust and the many journalists he represents. Additional update January 4: I clarified that I do not include specialized subscription services in my reference to news organizations that employ legal correspondents. And then there`s the BBC. You don`t need to pay a fee to read legal coverage on the BBC website or listen to Law in Action, the Radio 4 programme I started in 1984 and have been presenting since 2010. You don`t need a licence to listen to the puns I normally offer on Radio Scotland, Radio Wales and Radio Ulster – or on commercial TV stations. In fact, you don`t have to pay for commercial journalism at all. But you really should.

Then, access the primary sources online. I`m not as pessimistic as Green. While it is always risky to take legal action without proper advice, a non-lawyer should be able to read and understand the broad outlines of a modern parliamentary law or a recently decided case. Many law firms and lawyers offer expert commentary. From time to time, I provide links to the judges` remarks. Readers have no difficulty understanding them, but they are surprised that many of the judge`s remarks are considered too explicit or disturbing by journalists to report. Journalists can never be completely replaced by legal bloggers and tweeters – of which he and Secret Barrister are the oldest with 230,000 and 425,000 followers on Twitter respectively. According to Green, this is because non-journalists are not invited to press conferences in Whitehall and because they have no contact between judges and practitioners. Apart from specialist subscription services, there are only two London-based international news outlets that still employ full-time legal correspondents. Both the Times and the Financial Times are behind paywalls, but, Green says, “if you want good business journalism in the internet age, you have to pay for it.” Deputy editor Michael White said in March 2011 about media self-censorship: “I`ve always felt a liberal middle-class discomfort when it comes to following stories about immigration, legal or otherwise, about social fraud, or the less appealing tribal habits of the working class, which are more easily ignored.

Toffs, including members of the royal family, Christians, especially popes, Israeli governments, and American Republicans are easier targets. [181] As far as I know, the Guardian does not replace Bowcott and BBC News does not replace Coleman. I believe that both legal correspondents were offered dismissal by employers who were under pressure to reduce the number of employees. Lawyer and blogger David Allen Green published a timely post yesterday. Entitled The Last of the Legal Correspondents and the Real Crisis in Public Understanding of Law, he reported late last week on the retirements of Owen Bowcott and Clive Coleman. Haroon has worked for the Guardian for more than 15 years and is currently its legal correspondent, having previously worked as a journalist and senior reporter in the Guardian`s newsroom. The Scott Trust formalised Haroon`s appointment in an indicative vote after a successful husting and the support of journalists from the Guardian and the Observer.