Typical Tory MP
Still thinking at 56k. If you stand close to them, you can hear the boings
The Secretary of State for Health (and former technology PR) Jeremy Hunt, got himself into a bit of bother with a judge after sending a tweet during the Frances Cappuccini manslaughter trial. On the only the second day of the trial, Hunt had used the microbabble platform to link to a news report of the case, and commented that …
56000? Hardly.
You can get an idea of the actual data rate every time Big Ben sounds.
The Scottish MPs think it awful how they all have to get up and wander to a lobby for herding and counting, instead of just pressing a button!
Personally, I prefer it takes them all day to vote on two things. Slows them down from banning what little fun there is left!
Hunt is FREE to speak his opinion, even if it gives a false impression or is ill informed. The judge's control is over the jury, he is to ensure the jury don't READ anything that might be prejudicial, not controlling the world to NOT WRITE anything that might be prejudicial.
In the country I'm in, it is a crime to say anything bad about a court case or judgment, and as a result, you can see a CCTV video of a rich elite man run a van off the road killing all inside, the judge can rule "he never touched the van, it was a coincidence he crashed at the same time [keep in mind the video evidence is clear for all to see]", and NOBODY can say ANYTHING because it would be a crime.
No matter how you interpret Hunt's tweet as premature or ill-informed, don't let a judge get beyond the scope of his LIMITED control of free speech. Balances also apply to the judicial branch.
Strict Liability Contempt under the Contempt of Court Act 1981
The strict liability rule may render the publication a contempt regardless of any intent to interfere with the course of justice in the proceedings. Refer to The Law, earlier in this guidance, applies:
to publications (including broadcasts , websites and other online or text-based communication) addressed to the public at large or any section of the public;
which create a substantial risk that the course of public justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. Risk is judged at the time of publication. The longer the gap between publication and the trial ('the fade factor'), the less the substantial risk of serious prejudice is likely to be;
and only applies to legal proceedings that are "active" at the time of the publication.
As BurnT pointed out, it's only during the trial that there's any restrictions on discussing it, and it's intended to reduce the chances of biasing the case. Eg, if there's active discussion on it by people in the court then there's a better chance of the jury seeing it, or if they have to replace a jury member it becomes much harder to find someone who hasn't been biased by hearing an account from inside the court. Once the case is over though you can give whatever your opinions you like, including that the judge was wrong.
Also, while technically a judge might not enforce it against one side if he's biased, by definition this is supposed to apply to *any* discussion from inside the court, regardless of which side. Unless a judge has explicitly allowed it you aren't supposed to publish any of the court proceedings from within
edit: It also doesn't apply to people outside of court. Afaik people are free to give their opinions of what's going on in the trial, it's only when it's someone who's actually attended the trial that they run into issues with this
"Unless a judge has explicitly allowed it you aren't supposed to publish any of the court proceedings from within."
Criminal trials are public events (in the UK) and what is said and done there (if "newsworthy") is reported in the newspapers the next day or sooner. Jeremy Hunt didn't report what was said; he gave his public opinion of the case in such a way that the judge decided it might prejudice the trial.
But the Judge didn't say that the trial might be prejudiced, just that Hunt shouldn't have suggested he knew the outcome.
Since all he said was that it's unfortunate its hard to see how that could influence a manslaughter trial - someone's dead, either by mistake or not - of course that's unfortunate either way.
I'm no fan of Hunt, but this feels like a judge with their nose out of joint being petty. I wonder if that's contempt in itself.
Actually I go the opposite way - I don't think there should be any media coverage of a pending court case until its over.
Look how Christopher Jefferies was treated in the media over the mere possibility he murdered Joanna Yeates in 2010. After that media frenzy, had he gone to trial instead of Vincent Tabak, just how would you find a jury not prejudiced against him?
That is the point against Hunt. Not the post-trial analysis or recriminations, but the ability to have a jury that may have access to media and ensure they are not biased by tabloid scaremongering?
it well behoves any politician to keep his or her mouth shut over ANY legal case until the verdict is in and the sentence is passed
otherwise ANY comment could be interpreted as showing favour or support for one side, however well intentioned
In this case the Health Secretary commented on a case in which it was claimed that an NHS Trust - for which he has supervisory responsibility - was partially responsible for the death of the lady concerned. He hardly is in a position of neutrality, and quite simply ANY comment he could make could be misconstrued. The judge was quite correct to point out that Hunt was treading on thin ice
Why do you assume that a PR hack should know anything about technology, even if they specialise in Technology firms? Surely the evidence from just about every press release we see is that PR plonkers have no understanding of any technology more complicated than a light switch.
Jezza Ffrynt-Botham is no different to every other brain-dead MP.