UK Supreme Court Policy on Tweeting Etc. From Court
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has just released a policy statement concerning “The Use of Live Text-Based Communications from Court” [PDF]. The nub of the policy is simple and clear:
[A]ny member of a legal team or member of the public is free to use text-based communications from court, providing (i) these are silent; and (ii) there is no disruption to the proceedings in court.
Use of mobile phones from the court is prohibited. And, presumably, no video or still cameras are to be used: the court itself broadcasts proceedings using installed video cameras.
A few exceptions to the broadly permissive policy are set out, having to do with rare occasions when secrecy or privacy is important.
So far as I know, the Supreme Court of Canada does not have a published policy concerning text-based reporting from within the court. Though I was present when, recently, Simon Chester was given permission to use Twitter from within the court.
[via @montserratlj]
This policy applies only to the UK Supreme Court. It makes sense for appeals. The harder case is at trial – though there is precedent in Ontario for permission for tweeting by journalists (presumably potentially anybody) in the body of the court.
Is there Canadian policy yet on tweeting by jurors or counsel about the cases before them? Other Internet searches by jurors? The topic has been mentioned here, here and here, but not, apparently, re Canada.
While we await the first Canadian decision on the use of Twitter in the courtroom, we at least have Mr. Tweet, an expert witness in roofing: Stoll v. Franklin Homes Inc., 2010 SKPC 165 (CanLII)
Minor correction – I was told (informally) that the Court would have no objection to unobtrusive blogging. Don’t think that Twitter was mentioned because this Simon doesn’t tweet. As it happened, my battery was low and there wasn’t a plug within reach, so it didn’t happen.