AG on Blogging, New Media and Contempt

The Attorney General for England and Wales, Dominic Grieve gave a very interesting speech on December 1 entitled ‘Contempt – A Balancing Act: balancing the freedom of the press with the fair administration of justice’ to journalism students where he commented on his approach to contempt of court.

‘Citizen journalists’ should not think they are immune to the law of contempt, that there is a certain belief that so long as something is published in cyberspace there is no need to respect the laws of contempt or libel. While he accepts the danger posed to the administration of Justice by many bloggers is minimal, he say that we should not underestimate the potential for a blog or tweet to go viral.

We have seen in recent years not only the rise of social media but also the blog and the citizen journalist. Unlike major news organisations, which on the whole act in a responsible and measured manner, the inhabitants of the internet often feel themselves to be unconstrained by the laws of the land. There is a certain belief that so long as something is published in cyberspace there is no need to respect the laws of contempt or libel. This is mistaken.

Whilst I accept the danger posed to the administration of Justice by many bloggers is minimal, we should not underestimate the potential for a blog or tweet to go viral. As incautious city bankers and brides to be have discovered to their cost, comments on the web can soon be published far beyond their original, limited audience. And I use the word published advisedly, as publication is of course the phrase used within the Contempt of Court Act – an online article which breaches the strict liability rule runs the risk of running afoul of the law of contempt.

……………………..

The last case which I would like to mention involves something with which I suspect many of you are very familiar – Facebook.

A defendant in a trial had been acquitted of the charges she faced but the jury continued to consider their verdicts regarding her co-defendants. The night of her acquittal, one of the jury decided to go online and chat on Facebook.

Unfortunately she chose to track down the acquitted defendant on Facebook and proceeded to let her know her thoughts on the trial and the ongoing debate in the jury room. Knowledge of jury discussions is forbidden to all outside the jury. It is an offence under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to ‘obtain, disclose or solicit any particulars of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations in any legal proceedings’

In this case the juror and the former defendant engaged in a Facebook chat about what was happening in the jury room. Their conduct came to the attention of the Judge and eventually to me. Again, in my Public Guardian role, proceedings for this type of contempt of court cannot be instituted save by or with my consent or on the motion of a court having jurisdiction to deal with it. I concluded a contempt had been committed.

The juror admitted her contempt and was committed to prison for 8 months. The former defendant denied wrongdoing but, after a brief trial, was found also to be in contempt – she too was committed for 2 months, although in her case the order was suspended for 2 years as she had been on remand for some months before the trial of the original matter.

The case highlighted important principles and again that the internet does not provide some form of immunity from prosecution. Jurors must feel able to openly express their views and opinions to their fellow jurors without fear that they will be subjected to public exposure and possible ridicule or disgust. This prevents juries from being inhibited as they discuss the merits of the evidence which they have heard. It is essential that the sanctity of the jury room is preserved.

The revolution in methods of communication cannot change what the Lord Chief Justice has termed ‘essential principles’ and that is why contempt proceedings will be brought by me when required.

Here is the Evening Standard‘s take, the Guardian, and the Daily Telegraph.

This isn’t just about speech making. Last week, he applied to the High Court for permission to bring contempt proceedings against Theodora Dallas, a juror in a trial at Luton Crown Court. Ms Dallas was told by the trial judge not to conduct research on the internet. The case she was trying, which involved three defendants charged with causing grievous bodily harm, was discharged and a retrial ordered. Apparently, she deliberately looked up information about one of the defendants, a court was told last week.

As the Telegraph reports, Louis Mably, counsel for the Attorney-General, said: “Next day, when the jury retired, she informed other members of the jury. Her conduct was reported to the court and the judge discharged Ms Dallas and the remaining jurors.”

The Telegraph also reports on an interview which is behind the Times’ firewall:

In an interview with The Times Mr Grieve admitted the internet did present challenges but it was only a “lawless territory” to the extent that it made enforcing contempt laws more difficult if “people post things on the net abroad”.

He also dismissed “tittle-tattle on Twitter” as necessarily posing a problem to enforcing the contempt laws.

“Ultimately, no one thought that the contempt of court rules, even before 1981, would prevent dinner party tittle-tattle and nor should we necessarily get too exercised about that,” he said.

He added, however, that if comments went “viral” and were “reached by thousands or millions of people accessing a particular site or blog then of course we are going to be exercised about it”.

Mr Grieve said: “Judges have been given directions to jurors for a long time not to discuss cases with those who are outside the jury room. We know that long before the internet some failed in their duty occasionally and were punished for it.”

I am unaware of any of the Canadian Law Officers of the Crown having spent this much time thinking about these issues.