Juries in the UK, and notoriety
June 29, 2017 4:15 PM Subscribe
Several legal bods in the UK often give out a warning about Contempt of Court/ prejudicing a trial. Is there any Not Prejudicing a Trial for Beginners I could read?
My question is mainly based around a few massive trials coming up which I can't imagine anyone in the UK not knowing a bit about. In some of these cases, I have tweeted about various issues directly about *event* (or, indeed, wrote about these things on MeFi), before any legal interventions, but how is this not prejudicial when something written after a certain point would be? How would the jury be tested for not knowing and having an opinion on the *event* which happened?
Please note, its not that I'm not interested in practice outside the UK, it's just that the specific events I'm thinking of are in the UK and would not be unknown to any legally capable adult I can think of. All purely theoretical, I'm not worried about police at my door. Thanks all.
My question is mainly based around a few massive trials coming up which I can't imagine anyone in the UK not knowing a bit about. In some of these cases, I have tweeted about various issues directly about *event* (or, indeed, wrote about these things on MeFi), before any legal interventions, but how is this not prejudicial when something written after a certain point would be? How would the jury be tested for not knowing and having an opinion on the *event* which happened?
Please note, its not that I'm not interested in practice outside the UK, it's just that the specific events I'm thinking of are in the UK and would not be unknown to any legally capable adult I can think of. All purely theoretical, I'm not worried about police at my door. Thanks all.
It's been some years since I studied media law during journo training, but the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is the big one. Essentially, reporting restrictions kick in when "proceedings are active" - i.e. when someone's been charged, or a warrant issued. IIRC (though I'd have to check to be sure), proceedings cease to be active as soon as a verdict is brought, not when sentence is pronounced, on the basis that judges are thought to be clever and experienced enough not to be swayed by media coverage when considering their sentence.
There's obviously no way to prevent potential juries looking back at information that was published before proceedings were active, but I think there's always been a common-sense assumption that you have to draw a chronological line in the sand somewhere, and that's the place to do it (especially given that, before procedings are active, the police often have an interest in making sure as much information is being spread as possible, to help them find culprits, witnesses etc). So there's not an expectation that juries know nothing, just that they have only seen reporting on what was known prior to charges being brought (and, given that cases usually take quite some time to come to court, that time will have likely eroded some of the detail of what they recall anyway - they won't be arriving in the courtroom having just read the Sun's hot take of that morning on the case).
This looks like a pretty decent basic guide to the situation as I was taught it in 2000, and as I think it still stands, but...
This all predates the internet as we know it right now, and is based on the assumption that, once published, news was hard to re-find or re-view unless you went out looking for it. I don't know - and would be interested to read - how this applies to, for example, something that was posted on Facebook before proceedings were active, but shared after. I would assume in that case, the sharer would be in breach of the law, not the original poster (given that sharing constitutes publishing to third parties), but how you would prosecute that in practice when something has been shared thousands of times is an interesting question. In that case, I imagine the most significant repercussion would be the collapse of the trial rather than the prosecution of all the people who had shared/published prejudicial information after proceedings were active. Whether eg. facebook could be prosecuted for contempt in those circumstances, I have no idea.
Depending on how keen you are, McNae's Essential Law for Journalists is the bible on this, looks like the most recent edition came out 12 months ago. It does now have a website too with some resources on, not sure how useful that is without the book, but in case you want a rabbit-hole to disappear down.
tl;dr very crude guide - Best shut your mouth from the point someone gets charged until the end of the trial, and that includes sharing other people's comments.
posted by penguin pie at 6:55 AM on June 30, 2017
There's obviously no way to prevent potential juries looking back at information that was published before proceedings were active, but I think there's always been a common-sense assumption that you have to draw a chronological line in the sand somewhere, and that's the place to do it (especially given that, before procedings are active, the police often have an interest in making sure as much information is being spread as possible, to help them find culprits, witnesses etc). So there's not an expectation that juries know nothing, just that they have only seen reporting on what was known prior to charges being brought (and, given that cases usually take quite some time to come to court, that time will have likely eroded some of the detail of what they recall anyway - they won't be arriving in the courtroom having just read the Sun's hot take of that morning on the case).
This looks like a pretty decent basic guide to the situation as I was taught it in 2000, and as I think it still stands, but...
This all predates the internet as we know it right now, and is based on the assumption that, once published, news was hard to re-find or re-view unless you went out looking for it. I don't know - and would be interested to read - how this applies to, for example, something that was posted on Facebook before proceedings were active, but shared after. I would assume in that case, the sharer would be in breach of the law, not the original poster (given that sharing constitutes publishing to third parties), but how you would prosecute that in practice when something has been shared thousands of times is an interesting question. In that case, I imagine the most significant repercussion would be the collapse of the trial rather than the prosecution of all the people who had shared/published prejudicial information after proceedings were active. Whether eg. facebook could be prosecuted for contempt in those circumstances, I have no idea.
Depending on how keen you are, McNae's Essential Law for Journalists is the bible on this, looks like the most recent edition came out 12 months ago. It does now have a website too with some resources on, not sure how useful that is without the book, but in case you want a rabbit-hole to disappear down.
tl;dr very crude guide - Best shut your mouth from the point someone gets charged until the end of the trial, and that includes sharing other people's comments.
posted by penguin pie at 6:55 AM on June 30, 2017
Though also: As you'll see from those guides, it's actually only specific types of information that are prohibited from being published after proceedings are active.
What these are often depends on the specific issues that are germane to the trial and the defence - eg. If identification is an issue - if the case hangs on a particular witness identifying the accused - then publishing photographs or descriptions is prejudicial.
But unless you're really on top of the case, it's probably best to err on the side of caution and just keep schtum on everything from when charges are brought until it's all over.
posted by penguin pie at 7:04 AM on June 30, 2017
What these are often depends on the specific issues that are germane to the trial and the defence - eg. If identification is an issue - if the case hangs on a particular witness identifying the accused - then publishing photographs or descriptions is prejudicial.
But unless you're really on top of the case, it's probably best to err on the side of caution and just keep schtum on everything from when charges are brought until it's all over.
posted by penguin pie at 7:04 AM on June 30, 2017
« Older A few fun things on Maui sans kids | Timed test anxiety-- tips, advice, and should I... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 10:26 PM on June 29, 2017