back to article UK attorney general plans crackdown on 'trial by social media'

The UK's Attorney General is pondering whether to tighten up contempt of court laws and target Facebook and Twitter users who comment about live criminal trials. In a call for evidence made this morning, Jeremy Wright, QC, MP, asked for examples of court cases “in which social media has had an impact” to be forwarded to the …

Page:

  1. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse

    Why change anything?

    If the two examples in the story are representative of the current process then it seems to be working as intended?

    Within the realms of decency and civility - people don't generally take kindly to being told what they can and can't say.

    1. Lee D Silver badge

      Re: Why change anything?

      Because not only does such an instance "corrupt" the jury's opinion, it could make it difficult to find future jurors who are blissfully unaware or unaffected by previous dissemination of information (e.g. those in the jury for a retrail will have heard about the rumours that got the previous guy done for contempt when he told everyone about them).

      It's about eliminating the need for charges because people don't do it, and seeing how prevalent it is and whether it *does* affect anyone / any case, rather than saying it must immediately be clamped down on more harshly than it already is.

      In courts, you are a robot. You hear evidence. You are sometimes asked to DISREGARD statements. Then you have to judge as if you'd never heard them. Some people can do this (i.e. I see people's salaries all the time because I manage several IT finance / HR systems, but I cannot ever act upon that information even if I could do so privately), others can't. If people are going to be on a jury, they are deliberately (in the UK at least) random members of the public and thus from a wide range of education and vocational backgrounds, and it's not up to them to think for themselves about the case. It's not "do you think he actually did it", as some people think. It's "has the prosecution put forward a case that proves he did it beyond reasonable doubt, based solely on the evidence you've heard in this room and been told to consider". They are very different interpretations and it's hard to make juries understand that.

      Removing any kind of temptation to subvert that (by punishing even the most flippant of abuses harshly) is the only way to make people say "Well, I SUPPOSE I have to find him innocent based on this evidence, even though I *know* he did it, because otherwise I'll get into trouble".

      As it is, I believe that juries have their phones handed in, are isolated on long cases etc.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Why change anything?

        I don't know about England and Wales, but in Scotland we didn't have to hand in our phones, but we were expected to have them off in the court and during deliberations. During breaks/lunch we were allowed to have them on and use them, but not take/make calls in the jury room due to risk of overhearing something relevant to the case. That was in the High court for a 2.5 week trial. As far as isolation goes, it was only during the day, so we'd turn up in the morning and were not allowed to leave the building until the case had finished for that day.

        During the trial, I avoided searching for anything on the defendant or the witnesses. Nothing went on social media.

      2. strum

        Re: Why change anything?

        > it's not up to them to think for themselves about the case

        That bit isn't true. Jurors are expected to bring their own experience to the case and to judge the believability of witnesses.

        Otherwise, you are correct.

    2. strum

      Re: Why change anything?

      "working as intended" would mean that jurors (and others) were deterred from screwing up trials.

      In these incidents, the law did not work as intended.

  2. JimmyPage Silver badge
    Stop

    It's not social media that's the issue

    it's thickies - jurors and public.

    1. Korev Silver badge

      Re: It's not social media that's the issue

      "“Woooow I wasn't expecting to be in a jury Deciding a paedophile's fate, I've always wanted to Fuck up a paedophile & now I'm within the law!”"

      Yep. He's too stupid to realise that his function is decide if the suspect is a paedophile or not...

      1. Mark 85

        @Korev -- Re: It's not social media that's the issue

        He's too stupid to realise that his function is decide if the suspect is a paedophile or not...

        I do think he is of the opinion that if a suspect is arrested, he's guilty. It just the way people are and have "trained" maybe by watching too many cop shows on TV.

    2. big_D Silver badge
      Holmes

      Re: It's not social media that's the issue

      But if you look at a Venn diagram of social media users and thickies, there is a huge overlap. ;-)

      1. Red Bren

        Re: It's not social media that's the issue

        Isn't the problem the overlap between thickies and jurors because smart people tend to wriggle out of jury service and lawyers like thickies who can be swayed by emotional rather than factual arguments?

  3. earl grey
    Trollface

    The wookie did it.

    'Nuf said.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "The rough idea is that the defendant should be tried on the facts of the case rather than his or her personal history. "

    That is why a jury composed of members of the public is a bad idea. Even before the Internet, there was and still is "regular" media. If $newspaper$ publishes facts and/or fiction, how will you stop John Doe on a jury to read or hear about them ? These days you would have to put the jury in a faraday cage for the duration of a trial and only let them out for court sessions, preferably with no members of the public available. A "professional" jury might be an option, were it not that it would have to be composed of members of the legal profession to fully understand the ramifications of a verdict. And there you have the problem that juror A might have been to school with judge B, prosecutor C or defendant attorney D.

    Sod it, I'm off for a pint.

    1. SundogUK Silver badge

      "That is why a jury composed of members of the public is a bad idea"

      However, every alternative ever tried has proved worse.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        "That is why a jury composed of members of the public is a bad idea"

        However, every alternative ever tried has proved worse.

        Originally a jury was ONLY of people that knew the defendant and the likely the victim - it was people from the same village

        It is only more recently the idea that they should be 12 random strangers with no clue

      2. Adam 52 Silver badge

        "However, every alternative ever tried has proved worse."

        Other countries have bench trials. They aren't hopelessly corrupt and they tend to enforce the law as opposed to public opinion (see recent events in the US or South Africa) which may or may not be a good thing.

        And then there's magistrates' courts, the worst of both worlds, about which the less said the better.

    2. Version 1.0 Silver badge

      @AC

      It really sounds like you don't have a clue about the UK justice system - you sound like a bot to me.

      1. James 51
        Trollface

        Re: @AC

        @V1 it's the sort of thing Putain's trolls are paid to say. Could just be your normal garden variety moron too.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      As opposed to what, being tried by a Kangaroo court? (Previously known as Magistrates courts.)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @AC How about trial by Twitterati? Numerous people have had lost their jobs and had their lives ruined by the perpetually outraged collective.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Lynching

      Trial? Jury? You brits went soft in the head since the empire fell to politically correct bollocks.

      Off with their heads!!

      That's how you fix that crap.

  5. Version 1.0 Silver badge

    The Internet

    It seems these days that the Internet really is a system of tubes ... filled with porky pies. I completely agree that juries should be cut off from the Internet - yes, inconvenient I know, but Idiots on the Internet is actually a menace to the justice system.

  6. art guerrilla

    so many cowed cows, i can hear the lowing from here...

    1. while i have the advantage of speaking from ignorance from the two examples cited, the one seems fairly obvious, BUT actually presents an argument for MORE '(anti)social media', OTHERWISE, his private, unlawful thoughts wouldn't have been found out, AND he may have gone on to convict an otherwise innocent person because of his fervor to hang a pedo, ANY pedo. or suspected pedo, or once knew a pedo, etc...

    2. have NO DOUBT this has NOTHING to do with idiots on social media (is that redundant?) behaving badly, but is ALL ABOUT persecutors, er, prosecutors maintaining absolute authority in the court and control of all input/infomation...

    3. the other case cited seems -to me- to be ANOTHER argument FOR using the internet, in that i am betting the juror found out more real info on fraud in their private googling (REGARDLESS of how much was misnformation), than WHATEVER was going to be presented by the persecutors... THAT is what they don't want: a well informed juror who stands up for their right to DECIDE cases NOT just 'on the law' (as one-sidedly presented by the court), ie so-called 'jury nullification', which is actually juries performing their lawful duty in trying to enforce JUSTICE, not just 'the law' (which has little to nothing to do with 'justice' or equity these days)...

    all the rest of the sheeple bleating 'baaahhh, but its the lawwwwwww...' are cowards and tools...

    1. disgruntled yank

      regardless of how much was misinformation

      Thank goodness you aren't one of the sheeple.

      Ah, yes, jury nullification. A splendid notion in theory, in practice the reason that for example the non-white population of much of the US lived outside the protection of the law for so long.

      But I do see what you mean about social media. If there were a way for a voir dire to determine whether the potential juror wore out the caps lock key, it might well be a good thing.

      1. art guerrilla

        Re: regardless of how much was misinformation

        well, thanks for that useful response...

        oh, wait, there wasn't ANYTHING substantial in your post at all, just a handful of snark addressed to me personally....

        (other than the very weird putdown of jury nullification by insisting it is only a tool of jim crow racists... *sigh* another non-thinking SJW who sees a nazi behind every post...)

        here you go: art guerrilla at windstream dot net

        you want to snark, let's take it private; you want to argue with facts and rational discourse ? well, i have seen no evidence of that so far...

        have a nice day, SIR...

        (see, my capslock was connoting sarcasm there, did you pick up on that ? ? ?)

        1. Solarflare

          Re: regardless of how much was misinformation

          Is that you, Bob?

    2. James 51
      Trollface

      Re: so many cowed cows, i can hear the lowing from here...

      @A guerrilla, I had a whole rant typed up but I suspect you're a troll (Putain other otherwise) so I'll just warn others to stay away from the bridge.

    3. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: so many cowed cows, i can hear the lowing from here...

      art guerrilla,

      It isn't the jury's job to look up stuff online. Or to inform themselves. Or to make the case for either side.

      It is the prosecution's job to put together a case, and the defence's job to point out the holes or inconsistencies in that. Sometimes with expert testimony, that in the UK is supposed to be neutral and testifying on behalf of the court not either side. If the case is really ricketty, the defence might simply point and laugh and remind the jury that it's not their job to prove innocence, but the prosectuion's to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

      The judge is there to decide on what evidence either side is allowed to put before the jury.

      I've done jury service. I'm therefore partly responsible for someone serving a long time in prison. You want to be sure you don't fuck that kind of decision up.

      The next week we didn't convict someone, that nearly everyone thought was guilty, for exactly that reason.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I wouldn't worry it won't be long till we don't have juries anyway.

  8. mark l 2 Silver badge

    Well just as the US immigration are asking for people social media account before they can get a visa perhaps this should be part of the jury selection process where they have to have give over their social media account details before they can sit on a jury to ensure they don't post anything on their they shouldn't?

    it would be easy to tell who is likely to do something stupid just get the judge to ask the idiots to accept a Facebook friend request, those who accept don't get picked.

    1. IsJustabloke
      Stop

      ummmm....

      "Well just as the US immigration are asking for people social media account before they can get a visa"

      I recently visited the US (albeit on the visa waiver programme) you still need to apply for an esta and at no point was any mention of my social media accounts made.

      My travelling companion required an actual visa and again no mention of of her social media accounts was made....

    2. Gene Cash Silver badge

      > those who accept don't get picked

      Well then, I'd accept in a heartbeat! I don't want to be on a jury, dealing with stupid shit for god knows how long...

  9. The Nazz

    Contempt of court can also be committed by defying or ignoring a judicial order

    Ha ha , ha ha, effing ha ha

    Unless the one doing the committing ( on virtually every single occasion possible) is a mother in the Family Court, where the Judge will usually do feck all. With the rare exception.

    On criminal matters, couldn't the justice system helps themselves considerably here. Have the evidence heard in Court in a matter of hours rather than the drawn out procedures which take days, even weeks (aside from the time taken to proceed at Court) to hear the same evidence.

    For some political balance, wasn't Harriet Harman (the darling of Nu-Labour - did she ever actually DO anything?) involved with some similar shenanigins with her lawyer sister some time back?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Contempt of court can also be committed by defying or ignoring a judicial order

      What is your experiance based on?

      I'm aware of people being jailed for contempt of court, but I work at a law firm and probably have a wider base of experiance than the general public. Your right that the courts prefer not to jail people though for non violent and non serious crimes.

      1. Adam 52 Silver badge

        Re: Contempt of court can also be committed by defying or ignoring a judicial order

        "I'm aware of people being jailed for contempt of court"

        It happens at Crown Court quite often. Magistrates almost never. But usually for annoying the judge, and it's often the messenger that gets blamed not the person actually responsible, for example the Police officer in court will get blamed for the CPS failing to bring evidence, or the van driver from Serco rather than the prison service.

        Failing to do as ordered by a magistrate - whether that's answer bail, pay a fine, behaving in court, do community service or anything else - usually just results in being told to do the same thing again or the matter being forgotten about.

        Family Court, as mentioned by the OP, is so secretive and anti open justice that who knows but it doesn't smell good.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Contempt of court can also be committed by defying or ignoring a judicial order

        "but I work at a law firm" and still can't distinguish "your" from "you're"?

        Where do you work McLegals?

    2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: Contempt of court can also be committed by defying or ignoring a judicial order

      The Nazz,

      Court takes time for a reason.

      You need to gather lots of witnesses, suspects and victims in the same place for enough time to get the info out of them you need. Sometimes with expert witnesses too.

      You also need to get the judges and barristers in the same place. As they've got stuff to discuss. I've been sat in a jury room for 2 hours while the judge and barristers argued some point of law on what evidence we got to see. Obviously I've no idea what that was - but there's a balance to be struck between giving the defendant their right to a fair trial, and getting convictions. And that's what we pay judges for.

      We could make the courts service more efficient. Obviously. But there are limits. One thing we'd have to do is pay junior barristers much more cash, as they'd have to accept far fewer cases in order to be within range of the judges to have those arguments outside court time. We'd also probably need quite a few more judges.

  10. WibbleMe

    Some one worried about Democracy?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Nope

      Not me.

      Anybody?

      Yours truly,

      T. May

  11. Solarflare

    Couldn't this be achieved by removing reporting of crimes etc from the media? Why is it 'in the public interest' that Joe Bloggs of Main Street, Bognor may have committed an offence? If you want to report after Joe has been to court and been found guilty based upon all the evidence, then sure. But at the moment an accusation is sensationalised and can be given nationa;/international exposure. This prejudices cases and can lead to innocent people being the victims of witchhunts ("there's no smoke without fire!!").

    Have all parties anonymous until after the trial has concluded, anyone who exposes the details of a victim or a suspect should face criminal proceedings. Should help to stop prejudice from all sides.

    1. strum

      >Why is it 'in the public interest' that Joe Bloggs of Main Street, Bognor may have committed an offence?

      Because there may be witnesses who saw Mr. Bloggs there, at the time - or saw him elsewhere, at the time.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Not a very good example, because then you'd have to name the victim too in case they were elsewhere.

        As it happens I've been involved in a rape case where it turned out that the victim was elsewhere at the time of the offence. It was only by luck that the CCTV footage of her committing a crime came to the attention of the investigating officer. Jury still convicted the accused despite them being three miles apart at the time of the rape, but that's juries for you.

  12. IsJustabloke
    Meh

    A friend of mine was doing Jury Service recently

    and he told me that every single morning they were reminded about not saying anything on social media, or to partners or to mates down the pub and to make an effort to avoid reading anything about the case.

    It must take a pretty special kind of idiot to ignore the instructions.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: A friend of mine was doing Jury Service recently

      It is really tempting. I didn't, because I'm not an idiot. But there's a really strong temptation to find out stuff that people aren't telling you. That's just human nature. In a jury trial it's really obvious that you're being kept in the dark too.

      We were thrown out of court during a judgey rant. Prosecution had said something, after already being stopped mid-sentence once by the judge. So he started to launch into a tirade about not ignoring what they'd agreed in closed session, then remembered we were still there, told us to disregard the last bit from the prosectution, sent us off to the jury room for tea - and we could hear the shouting after the doors had closed.

      Plus there's just curiousity. There's only so much money the police can spend on investigating an assault say. So there are really quite annoying gaps in the evidence you've got, and you always feel you could make a better decision if you had more.

      1. Cynic_999

        Re: A friend of mine was doing Jury Service recently

        "

        Plus there's just curiousity. There's only so much money the police can spend on investigating an assault say. So there are really quite annoying gaps in the evidence you've got, and you always feel you could make a better decision if you had more.

        "

        The big problem however is that very often the "more evidence" that you find out is a load of bollocks. You plug the defendant's name into Google and you may well (1) come up with something written about a person with the same name or (2) a social media rant from the defendant's ex-girlfriend.

        I do not have a problem with jurors looking up a few objective facts (e.g. the weather at the time of the crime, or the distance between two locations), but I do have a problem if a juror should look up things that are subjective or that could prejudice the juror against the defendant - e.g. the fact that the defendant is a blatant racist has no bearing on his guilt in a fraud case ...

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: A friend of mine was doing Jury Service recently

          The big problem however is that very often the "more evidence" that you find out is a load of bollocks.

          Entirely true. Which is one reason why I didn't do it. The others being you're breaking the law, plus fucking up the entire process.

          Well after one case was over I did have a look online. Turned out there was almost no information anyway. Couldn't even find out what sentence the crims in question had got - as local papers haven't done court reporting since about the 90s.

          I do not have a problem with jurors looking up a few objective facts

          Even this can be dangerous. Obviously there's no problem checking distances, though if that's relevant you should have been given the info. Also you're allowed to send a note to the judge to ask for any info like that which you feel you need.

          But you don't want jurors looking up medical info for example. If it's needed, that's what expert witnesses are supposed to be for. Admittedly there have been cases where this has gone wrong, and the witness isn't as objective as they're supposed to be. In the US I understand it's common practise for both defence and prosecution to have their own, in the UK they're supposed to work for the court, and it's very unusual for both sides not to accept them as a neutral source and get their own.

          Hence you're told as a blanket instruction not to search. You've got a mechanism to ask for more info, and that is probably important so the judge (and any appeals process) knows what info you got. If the prosecution don't give you enough info, your job isn't to look it up, it's to ask for more. If you're still not happy, it's to find "not guilty".

          Appeals aren't normally supposed to overturn the finding of juries - but they need to know what info the jury had, so they can rule on whether that was enough, or even too much.

      2. strum

        Re: A friend of mine was doing Jury Service recently

        >It is really tempting.

        It may be - but, leave it until after the case. A juror's job is to assess the evidence adduced - not to seek out more evidence.

        That said, there's nothing wrong with a juror asking the judge for more info on a particular point. On one case I was a juror on, we questioned whether a prosecution photo showed what they claimed it showed. Immediately, the judge made it clear that he thought we were right - that the prosecution had cocked up (and they had).

        Then if the prosecution hasn't given you enough to go on - acquit.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Happy

      Re: A friend of mine was doing Jury Service recently

      It must take a pretty special kind of idiot to ignore the instructions.

      Usually ones with time on their hands, like the unemployed, the retired and what the Americans call homemakers. Because if you have a serious job then jury service will cost you serious money. So you will probably do all you can to get out of it. You can claim up to £64.95 per day in lost earnings, i.e. about half UK median earnings, less than the amount witnesses can claim under similar circumstances. So, you get to appreciate your status from the fact that the only person in the court who gets less than you is the defendant.

      1. r_c_a_d_t

        Re: A friend of mine was doing Jury Service recently

        Or people who work for a reasonable employer that will pay them as normal while on jury service. As mine did, for 2 weeks, because they recognised it as a public good.

  13. cantankerous swineherd

    ag getting picky about contempt but doing nothing about the home secretary.

    http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/14/amber-rudd-in-contempt-of-court-for-deporting-asylum-seeker-against-judges-wishes-6929540/

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      And Theresa May

      How many times times were her decisions judged unlawful?

      That would be several.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like