Gail Sheridan, wife of Tommy, has lodged formal complaints relating to how prosecution services used 'PR" spin against her a recent perjury trial. Stephen Raeburn, editor of legal magazine The Firm, reviews the potential consequences

Lothian and Borders police, and possibly also the BBC, are under the spotlight as Gail Sheridan formally complains about her treatment by the force under interview, and by implication the broadcast of key parts of her interview, in which the interviewing officer likens her exercise of her right to silence to terrorism training.

Gail Sheridan has had all criminal charges raised against her dropped, and is innocent in the eyes of the law. Release and broadcast of police interview tapes is uncommon, if not unheard of, when no conviction has been brought against the interviewee. Media organisations in Scotland and the rest of the UK have broadcast selected police interview material before, for instance in the case of the paedophile Robert Black, post conviction. And in that particular case, in the context of a documentary endeavouring to explain the history of Black’s series of high profile crimes which eluded detection and explanation over an extended period. In the Gail Sheridan example, the interview video -broadcast after all charges against her had been dropped- by definition cannot enlighten the public in the same respect. The public interest argument is not so clear cut or easy to see.

Both Lothian and Borders police and indeed the BBC may now have to offer an explanation in an attempt to justify the broadcast of the Gail Sheridan material, and also how it came to be in the possession of the BBC. The Firm has had sight of the material released officially to the media by the Crown Office, and the Sheridan tapes were not amongst them.

The challenge for any media organisation trying to cover any criminal case, especially a lengthy complex one, is to distil extensive evidential material into a package that can be presented concisely and efficiently to the public in its coverage. Video material or photographs can literally save a thousand words in each case, but there comes a point where the material ceases to be enlightening in a sense justifiable to the public interest, and the material becomes prurient.

The conduct of Lothian and Borders police may in fact prove to be even more nefarious. Details of the presence of alcohol miniatures in the Sheridan home were spun to sectors of the media as apparent evidence of theft by Mrs Sheridan, although no charges were ever raised, and their status as souvenir trinkets was later established, but at what costs to Mrs Sheridan’s reputation? Only those close to the investigation could have provided this detail to selected media, and if Mrs Sheridan’s complaint progresses, the provenance of how this information came to the public domain may be probed.

The Contempt of Court legislation exists to provide a framework for the media and ensure justice in coverage of criminal cases. The legislation is sound in so far as it is written and applies to broadcasters and publishers, and sets out clearly what material can be used by media, and more importantly what cannot, principally from the timeframe of arrest. However the legislation has proven to be ineffective because of the inconsistency with which it is applied by the Crown, and the ease with which its provisions can be dodged, especially in the crucial hours and days before an arrest is made.

As Gail Sheridan’s complaint progresses, it is likely that a new benchmark standard will be set as to what material may be broadcast or circulated by media when a person is not guilty of any offence. The conventions which are presently stretched to their maximum flexibility may soon need to become enshrined in clarifying legislation, if the administration of justice is threatened by media enthusiasm. The resolution of Gail Sheridan’s complaint is likely to resonate in media circles and redefine current practice.

The fact that current protections are written for editors and journalists to heed, rather than the general public, is significant. Journalists and editors are trained and know the pitfalls to avoid. Random public bloggers who now have the ability to access the media directly themselves are not. A juror in the Sheridan case published highly sensitive material relating to the case online, but it would take an extremely tenuous and highly stylised interpretation of the Contempt of Court Act -written when broadcasters and editors filtered out risky material, and aimed squarely at them, rather than the public- to secure a conviction against the juror.

This area of law is long overdue for an overhaul to reflect the reality that the buffer of the media no longer exists to separate smear from the ears of the public. Gail Sheridan's complaint is likely to be the catalyst.