Honorifics and equality in the court

Reports of court proceedings sometimes make a distinction between the defendant and others in the court by omitting titles such as Mr or Ms. The Press Council has been asked to consider this practice.

The Press Council is sometimes asked to rule on the omission of honorifics from some participants in newspaper reports of court proceedings. Newspaper practice has been to omit honorifics (Mr, Sir, Ms etc) either from all accused people or, in some cases, from those convicted of a crime, while maintaining honorifics for all other participants in the drama: judges, lawyers, witnesses, police etc.

It has been suggested by some complainants that the omission of honorifics from the accused while maintaining them for all others sets the accused apart and contradicts the presumption of innocence (which is "the golden thread that runs through British justice", to quote Horace Rumpole).

In Adjudication No. 580, August 1992, the Council considered a complaint arising from court reports of the trial of Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen. It ruled that the omission of honorifics was not a breach of its principles.

The Press Council points that there may be some distortion of the right of the accused to be presumed innocent by the use of surname alone in court reports. However, that practice is no more than a reflection of the law process itself.

Almost all, but not all, newspapers use the surname formula. The Council does not consider it a breach of its principles.

At the time of that adjudication, and subsequently, some senior jurists made the point that the practice of omitting honorifics from the accused no longer reflects what actually happens in court. One such letter, from Justice Michael Kirby, President of the NSW Court of Appeal, was published in the Press Council News in November 1992.

In late 1994, the Council was again asked to rule on the question of honorifics, arising from a complaint about a report in a suburban newspaper on a case from a local court. The Council said (Adjudication No. 778, February 1995), "On the question of honorifics, the report was in accordance with accepted newspaper practice to omit honorifics in references to the accused. However, the Council is of the view that it is now timely for this practice to be reviewed."

As part of such a review, the Council then sought the views of courts and publications on their current practice and their preferences for the use of honorifics in court reports.

COURTS

Most courts have indicated that they no longer make a distinction between the accused and others in the court and would prefer that newspaper reports were similar.

Prefer change

Justice Michael Kirby summarises the consensus view.

I do not believe that the practice of the courts, at least generally, is now to refer to accused persons without their description as Mr, Ms etc. Especially if the accused has not been convicted, he or she is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Deleting the honorific is a way of treating the accused person as something less than a citizen and an individual with dignity. Even if the accused has been convicted and is before a court on an appeal, it is my invariable practice to refer to him or her with the use of the appropriate description, Mr, Ms etc. I believe that most judges nowadays do this. The courts and the media should not lower themselves by removing human dignity, even where a prisoner has been shown to have done so.

I hope that the Australian Press Council will revise its former ruling. In my experience most good journalists now (as most good judges) refer to the accused and convicted persons by their honorific. This could should be encouraged and strongly recommended by the Council.

In NSW Local Courts the majority of magistrates makes no distinction between parties in the courts. Chief Magistrate, Ian Pike, sees this as a development from former times and would prefer no distinction be made in court reports.

In the Victorian Supreme Court, there is no formal policy but most judges use honorifics when referring to the accused. While the court recognises the current newspaper practice, it says it does not reflect court practice and finds it "a bit discourteous".

Neither the Supreme Court of Tasmania nor the South Australian Supreme Court makes distinctions among court participants and prefers no distinction to be made in reports of court proceedings.

In the Western Australian Supreme Court, all participants get honorifics or rank, except where a defendant has pleaded guilty or been found guilty, then it is up to the individual judge. The Chief Justice has expressed a preference that no distinction among participants be made in court reports.

Neutral

Three courts expressed neutrality on the question of honorifics in newspaper reports.

The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory and the Queensland Supreme Court noted that it was at the discretion of presiding judge as to whether honorifics were used in reference to the accused; neither expressed any preference on the use of honorifics in newspaper reports.

The NSW Supreme Court said that its practice was for accused in custody to have honorifics omitted in orders etc. However, this is changing with more judges using honorifics. While expressing no preference on the use of honorifics in newspaper reports, its representative said:

You ask whether the courts would prefer to see no distinction made between accused and others in the court. If, by that question, you intend to raise the possibility that newspapers would omit honorifics in relation to the other persons referred to, the answer to the question is in the negative. If, however, the question is intended to raise the possibility that, for the future, newspapers would use honorifics when referring to persons in custody, then the courts would regard that as a matter entirely for the newspapers.

MEDIA

Those of the print media who responded to the Council's request for guidance were more divided than the courts in their approach to the subject. Generally they responded in one of four ways.

Prefer change to include honorifics

Two regional newspapers expressed a preference for the majority view of the courts. The Central Western Daily currently omits honorifics for defendants in all reports as has been the practice but thinks that the practice should change and is looking at it now. It believes that the Press Council should issue a general recommendation to encourage newspapers to reconsider.

The Tweed Daily News also thinks it is time to overhaul the use of honorifics in court reports. It argues that the practice continues for historical rather than judicial reasons and agrees that the Council should issue a recommendation calling for change.

Prefer change to exclude all honorifics

Australian Consolidated Press (the largest of the magazine publishers) generally omits honorifics for all participants in any reports it carries of courts. It adopts the position expressly rejected by the NSW Supreme Court: arguing that honorifics are "largely unread elements that waste space and devastate forests", it would prefer that there be no honorifics for any of the participants in court reports.

Prefer change to include honorifics for accused but omit when convicted/plead guilty

The West Australian adopts a position similar to its state's Supreme Court: all participants get honorific or rank, except where a defendant has pleaded guilty or been found guilty. Appellants who have been found guilty do not get honorific. The newspaper argues that the presumption of innocence ought to dictate that, until convicted, the defendant should be treated as others in court.

The Herald and Weekly Times group, which omits honorifics from "participating sportsmen and women, artists, actors, authors, musicians, convicted criminals and the long dead", and the Launceston Examiner appear to agree.

No reason to change

The largest group of the media is composed of those who thought that there was no need for a change in the current media practice and urged the Council not to issue any guidelines on the matter.

The Wagga Wagga Daily Advertiser, The Burnie Advocate, The Border Morning Mail and The Hobart Mercury all omit honorifics for defendants in all reports as has been practice. All believe that the current system should stay. The Advocate has considered the system advocated by The West Australian but thinks it could be messy. The Mercury sees a long-term solution in the dropping of all honorifics, but would not do it just yet.

Australian Associated Press says that it is guided by subscribers; as most omit honorifics, so does AAP. It says that it will be guided by its subscribers' needs.

John Fairfax Publications in general makes no distinction between accused and other persons in its reports. Individual editors may vary this according to circumstances. It sees no reason to change.

The Press Council review

The Council, having looked at the responses, does not, at this stage, feel the necessity to issue guidelines on the matter or to recommend a standard for all the print media. Noting that the courts were changing their attitudes to the use of honorifics in their own jurisdictions, and that the newspaper practice currently used is said to be based on the courts' practices, the Council considered that it was a matter which each publication (and all publishers) should look at.

This article is a part of that process and the Council looks forward to a continuing debate on this matter.

David Flint
Jack R Herman

see also
Index on David Flint's material on the website
Index of courts and contempt material on the website

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 1995 Index

Documents with the icon require the Acrobat Reader, a Free Utility from Adobe. Click here for more information.