When can tweeting and blogging be in contempt of court?
Media coverage of the murder of Joanna Yeates has focused the attention of journalists and lawyers on the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (CCA). The Act is designed to protect legal proceedings, and especially jurors, from being prejudiced by media reporting. A classic example would be the publication, shortly before or even during a criminal trial, of a defendant's previous convictions.
Professional journalists are trained on how to avoid being in contempt, which can result in up to 2 years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. Nowadays, however, anyone with an internet connection or a smart phone can disseminate their opinions to the public via Twitter, blogs, message boards and social networking sites. Such online publishing is, at least in theory, likely to be covered by the contempt rules. However, most amateur journalists, bloggers and pundits are probably unaware of the 'strict liability rule', let alone the serious penalties.
The 'strict liability rule' (so called because the intention of the publisher is irrelevant) applies to any publication, addressed to any section of the public, about proceedings which are 'active'. A criminal case is active from the time of arrest, for example. The test is whether there is a substantial risk that justice will be seriously prejudiced.
Could we see Tweeters and bloggers being committed for contempt for posting prejudicial material, even if they had not heard of the strict liability rule? If not, is it fair that only professional journalists be restricted in what they publish? Some say that the CCA is no longer effective in light of social media, and that professional news providers in the UK should be freed from its restrictions. There is no such rule in the US, where jurors are carefully handpicked to avoid any who may be prejudiced.
Lawyers Timothy Pinto
