WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says he wants to use modern technology to influence justice, but perhaps he didn’t envisage being the spark that allowed live Twitter updates into English courtrooms.
New interim guidance set out by the top judge for England and Wales on Tuesday, following the court appearances of Assange last week, says that reporters are allowed to use text-based communications such as texts and e-mails to provide live updates.
The English court system—one of the oldest in the world—is fairly restrictive. You can’t film. You can’t take photos. You can’t make audio recordings. You can’t turn your phone on. Until now, tweeting had not been an issue.
The new guidance on live social-media updates follows three court hearings earlier this month regarding Assange, which brought with them intense international media coverage.
At one bail hearing the judge informed reporters that they could send live tweets. At the next bail hearing, a different judge told reporters they were not allowed.
The guidance published by the lord chief justice on Tuesday is a stop-gap before the policy is reviewed through public consultation. It says that a mobile phone, small laptop, or similar piece of equipment can be used in court, provided it is used only to provide live text-based communications of the proceedings.
“There is no statutory prohibition on the use of live text-based communications in open court. But before such use is permitted, the court must be satisfied that its use does not pose a danger of interference to the proper administration of justice in the individual case,” says the guidance.
“The use of an unobtrusive, hand-held, virtually silent piece of modern equipment for the purposes of simultaneous reporting of proceedings to the outside world as they unfold in court is generally unlikely to interfere with the proper administration of justice.”
Lord Chief Justice Lord Igor Judge said that the final decision rested with the judge of each case and that journalists would need to make formal or informal applications.
He also said that the greatest risk to justice of live updates was in criminal cases, where witnesses out of court could be primed and “coached” before they gave evidence. He also suggested that inadmissible evidence posted on Twitter could influence the jury.
Some commentators say that the live twitter updates during the court appearance of Julian Assange were a legal first. But according to BBC’s legal analysts, the practice has been going on “quietly and surreptitiously for some time.”
New interim guidance set out by the top judge for England and Wales on Tuesday, following the court appearances of Assange last week, says that reporters are allowed to use text-based communications such as texts and e-mails to provide live updates.
The English court system—one of the oldest in the world—is fairly restrictive. You can’t film. You can’t take photos. You can’t make audio recordings. You can’t turn your phone on. Until now, tweeting had not been an issue.
The new guidance on live social-media updates follows three court hearings earlier this month regarding Assange, which brought with them intense international media coverage.
At one bail hearing the judge informed reporters that they could send live tweets. At the next bail hearing, a different judge told reporters they were not allowed.
The guidance published by the lord chief justice on Tuesday is a stop-gap before the policy is reviewed through public consultation. It says that a mobile phone, small laptop, or similar piece of equipment can be used in court, provided it is used only to provide live text-based communications of the proceedings.
“There is no statutory prohibition on the use of live text-based communications in open court. But before such use is permitted, the court must be satisfied that its use does not pose a danger of interference to the proper administration of justice in the individual case,” says the guidance.
“The use of an unobtrusive, hand-held, virtually silent piece of modern equipment for the purposes of simultaneous reporting of proceedings to the outside world as they unfold in court is generally unlikely to interfere with the proper administration of justice.”
Lord Chief Justice Lord Igor Judge said that the final decision rested with the judge of each case and that journalists would need to make formal or informal applications.
He also said that the greatest risk to justice of live updates was in criminal cases, where witnesses out of court could be primed and “coached” before they gave evidence. He also suggested that inadmissible evidence posted on Twitter could influence the jury.
Some commentators say that the live twitter updates during the court appearance of Julian Assange were a legal first. But according to BBC’s legal analysts, the practice has been going on “quietly and surreptitiously for some time.”
