Contempt risk over TV case

Contempt of court is a serious matter — you can be banged up overnight for having the temerity to argue with a man in a wig and a red robe. Although district judges do not don the regalia so often these days, their powers are just as strong, and you slight them at your peril.

So I address this warning to those who appear still to be misrepresenting the judgement in the Gannon case at Bolton Crown Court concerning the illegal showing of satellite transmissions of English football. My only concern in this is that readers are not misled.

I am not taking sides. To suggest, as some have, that the Bolton case proved that showing foreign satellite TV was not a criminal act, is to fly in the

face not only of the judgement that was handed down, but also in the subsequent warning by the actual judge that this was by no means the correct interpretation of what he said.

That the judge took the unprecedented step of issuing a statement after the case should have warned off those in the business - and in the media - from pursuing the idea that his decision had somehow changed the law. He was at considerable pains to point out that the illegality of the showing was not in question.

Mr Gannon escaped because the prosecution could not show the required level of dishonesty in his actions.

It appeared that he honestly thought that the deal he had done was sufficient to cover him legally, as did a group of licensees in Portsmouth.

Now all those who are in any way involved in the satellite business not only know about the Gannon case but also know about the judge's statement afterwards.

If they persist in putting it about that the case changed the law, then they are clearly in contempt, because they have been warned.

I have yet to see any statement from any of these people, including their lawyers, that gives any form of legal reasoning why the transmission of foreign satellite broadcasts of English Premier League football matches is not a breach of copyright and thereby potentially a criminal offence.

Protesting about the unfairness of Sky's monopoly is one thing.

But knowingly misrepresenting the law is quite another. I would not advise anyone to risk their freedom any further, but rather stick to legitimate campaigning for a fairer deal for licensees.