ANY QUOTES USED MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO MURNAGHAN, SKY NEWS

DERMOT MURNAGHAN: Now then, how do you commit a crime in 140 characters? Well you’re about to find out. The Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer has published his guidelines for what is illegal on Twitter and other social media sites and he wants to hear your thoughts. Well let’s say a very good morning to the Director of Public Prosecutions, good morning to you Mr Starmer. Well let’s talk about that, you’ve been looking into this issue and there’s been much discussion about in particular Twitter. You were saying if someone is clearly drunk or joking or both then you’ve got to look at what they say a little less seriously.

KEIR STARMER: Yes, I think the difficulty here is really the scale. There are roughly speaking 314 million tweets a day, if only a small number of those are grossly offensive then there is quite a lot of cases to deal with and the or context in which social media is used, people use it spontaneously, they put stuff out that they might not say to someone’s face and so somehow prosecutors have to work through that and decide what cases really ought to fall for prosecution and what shouldn’t. We’ve distinguished four types of cases: if you threaten someone with assault or something then you can expect to be prosecuted, if you breach court orders or if you target someone for harassment but where it’s something else that’s offensive, highly offensive, we’ve said there’s a high threshold and those cases are less likely to be prosecuted. So it is making a clear distinction between the four categories and then setting a high threshold for the …

DM: But on that fourth one, I mean if you cross laws, if you cross equality laws or laws about racial abuse, then presumably prosecutions will follow?

KS: Where there’s a racial element, particularly where it’s targeted, then that would very often fall to be looked at as harassment but there is a lot of stuff out there that’s highly offensive that’s put out on a spontaneous basis. It’s quite often taken down pretty quickly and the view is that that sort of remark, those sorts of remarks don’t necessarily need to be prosecuted. Now the important thing is that the guidelines that I’ve drafted are out for consultation, they are in force for three months, during those three months we’re consulting so we’re very keen to hear views on whether we adopt this balance between free speech and the criminal law.

DM: Is it your view that some of the prosecutions, some even of the investigations that have taken place have been too knee-jerk and not really thought through. One thinks of the particular case about Doncaster airport.

KS: I think if there are too many investigations and too many cases coming to court, that can have a chilling effect for free speech so this is about trying to get the balance right, making sure time and resources are spent on cases that really do need to go to court and not spent on cases which people might think really would be better dealt with by a swift apology and removal of the offending item.

DM: Well would that be a factor in any consideration, if it’s borderline, when you decide whether to prosecute or not, if there is instant remorse and an apology saying it was late at night and I’d been down the pub, you would understand that and say okay, apologise where appropriate and take it down?

KS: Yes, it’s not a get out of jail card but it is highly relevant. Quite a lot of stuff does go up on a Friday and Saturday night and come down again the next morning. If that’s the case I think a lot of people would say well it shouldn’t have happened, the person’s accepted it but really you don’t need a criminal prosecution, so it is a relevant factor.

DM: But what about when it’s libellous? Is that then a matter for the individuals and the civil courts? I’m thinking of Lord McAlpine and I know that some of those cases are still being talked through but is that then a case for those individuals and their legal teams?

KS: Well it is a civil matter but it is a reminder for all of us that social media is not a law free zone. The ordinary laws do apply and therefore if it is libellous then the civil law may have a sanction. That is obviously not something for me to consider but it is a reminder and that is also what our guidelines are about, it’s making it clear to people that this isn’t somewhere you can go and do and say what you like without any regard for the consequences.

DM: You’ve been spending a lot of time I know looking at the repercussions of the Jimmy Savile affair and looking into what it means for, I suppose joined up thinking between all the investigating authorities. What lessons have been learned and how are you implementing them?

KS: Well I think there are a number of lessons. The first is testing the credibility of victims and witnesses. It’s really approaching a victim in the right frame of mind. Now when somebody come in to a police station to report that they’ve been burgled the line of enquiry isn’t immediately, I wonder if they are telling the truth and it is making sure that when we are dealing with children and other vulnerable witnesses in the case of sexual allegations, we don’t start with the mind-set of testing to the nth degree what they’re saying without looking at everything else, looking at the person they’re saying is the suspect. So there’s that bit and then there’s the joining up. If there are a number of allegations against a particular individual coming from different people then they are mutually reinforcing and it’s making sure we’re picking all that up and putting it all together at the right time.

DM: And have you any thoughts on, I mean there is this Operation Yew Tree which is still on-going as we know, tremendously sensitive, have you any thoughts on the naming of some of the individuals that have been arrested? I know the Mayor of London has expressed some concerns about that, they have simply been arrested and asked questions.

KS: Yes, there are arguments either way and it is quite a sensitive topic but it is important to appreciate that in a number of cases, and I’m not talking about Yew Tree here, there are other cases that we have prosecuted in the past where once an individual is named, other victims come forward and that can be very important. The whole Jimmy Savile thing is an example of that, most of the victims thought they were the only one and most of them are saying well I would have come forward and I would have been prepared to do more about it if I had known there were all these other people. So the naming of someone who has been arrested is I know sensitive, I can see the arguments on either side but it is important to appreciate that quite often it can lead to other victims saying ah, well I’m not the only one and then other allegations come out. So there are strong arguments.

DM: Where are we on the campaign to get cameras into some courts, limited coverage of what goes on in those courts? Of course it’s a campaign that Sky News has been long involved in and I know that you support it as well. We’re going to have them in the Court of Appeal in October are we?

KS: They are going to come in on a limited basis and it will be for sentencing in the upper courts, in the Appeal Court but for my part I would go … I mean I welcome that obviously, I think that’s an important first step but I think it should be a first step. I think there should be steps following on where we use cameras more often in court because cameras, as I’ve said before, can be the eyes and ears of ordinary people who are interested in what’s going on in court but can’t get there to see for themselves.

DM: I suppose the engine room of the justice system is the Crown Courts, do you see them getting into those Crown Courts up and down the country?

KS: I would be in favour of that. Obviously some measures would have to be put in place so that victims and witnesses and other vulnerable individuals aren’t put off but I think that the presumption should be cameras in court with then some safeguards round the edges to make sure that …

DM: But what about the safeguards because we know that the Lord Chief Justice said recently, Lord Judge, that putting cameras in Crown Courts could promote disruptions and deter witnesses. I mean that is so important isn’t it, we’re talking about the Savile case, about people coming forward, they might not want to appear on television.

KS: No, I think that’s right and you would have to have safeguards in court but we have to take this with a dose of reality. In a big high profile case there are cameras outside court filming people going in and out, there are journalists quite rightly in court who come out and do pieces to camera immediately evidence is given or who use Twitter to get messages immediately out about what’s going on in court, so we wouldn’t be moving from somewhere it was simply a very private affair with no cameras and journalists on the one hand and then cameras, we’re simply making the difference from the camera outside the door of the court to being in the court itself. That’s not to say we don’t need safeguards but for my part I think that would be a very good thing.

DM: Lastly this issue, going for the middle classes was an interview you gave to the Financial Times not too long ago saying on tax, on tax evasion, that you’ve got to be more robust in prosecuting those from the middle classes who you feel have committed crimes.

KS: What I actually said is that we’re going to increase the number of prosecutions five fold and it is going to be across all categories. The characterisation of middle class was put on by somebody else and was not actually something that came from me but the initiative is to increase significantly the number of prosecutions for tax avoidance if it’s dishonest and that is something that we intend to do over a four year period but it’s across the piece. Some of it will be highly elaborate schemes that are run by those with high qualifications in the field so this is not about a particular group or class of individual but is a clear message that if you are engaging in tax avoidance that is dishonest, then you’re more likely to be prosecuted.

DM: Because in the past it was a rap on the knuckles, pay it back, a bit of interest and on you go.

KS: Well this has always been dealt with by Her Majesties Revenue and Customs and not by my department.

DM: Are you asking them to refer more from the fraud office to the DPP?

KS: They’ve got a range of responses, very often it will be a civil response or recovery of money but there has always been the potential to prosecute but the change here is a big increase in the number that are likely to be prosecuted.

DM: Fascinating. Okay, good to talk to you Mr Starmer, thank you very much indeed. Keir Starmer the Director of Public Prosecutions.