Twitter can be used in courts says top judge

The Lord Chief Justice said decisions over the use of the Twitter micro-blogging website would be made on a case-by-case basis depending on the risk of interference to the “proper administration of justice”.

This risk would be at its highest in criminal trials where witnesses outside the courtroom could find out what is being said inside before being called to give evidence, he warned.

Although there has been no stautory prohibition on tweeting in court, today’s clarification of the rules will mean those who wish to tweet in court know that subject to the approval of the judge, they would be free to do so.

“Twitter is one way people can learn what is happening in the courts and feel engaged with the judicial process” writer Heather Brooke

Scrutiny

Technology and media lawyer and legal blogger David Allen Green has welcomed the move although he points out it does not mean a change in statute: “This is only guidance, not new law. However, it does make a difference.

“The principle of “open justice” is currently rather artificial, as not everyone can hang around courts just to sit in a public gallery. By providing guidance, this may open up the court rooms to greater scrutiny.”

As a Twitter user, he thinks there is the potential for court tweeting to be a positive addition to public understanding of the legal process: “Twitter can be used well and it can be used badly, the same as with any other form of media.

“It is to be welcomed if it provides a more effective means by which the public can better understand the legal process more generally and certain cases in particular.”

As for any potential pitfalls for the guidance, he believes the most obvious one, dangers to the administration of justice in criminal trials, appears to have been avoided.

Assange trial

The clarification has come about following requests from journalists and campaigners to tweet from the trial of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

The announcement that the Lord Chief Justice would be giving the guidance was made last Thursday – hours after supporters of Mr Assange were banned from posting updates from court while a High Court judge decided whether he should be granted bail.

Mr Justice Ouseley, who went on to give Mr Assange conditional bail that day, ruled at the start of the proceedings that supporters and journalists should not send tweets to give a blow-by-blow account of what was happening.

At an earlier bail hearing, District Judge Howard Riddle had allowed tweeting from City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, which some commentators proclaimed as a legal first.

He said journalists could send messages as long as they were discreet and did not interfere with the judicial process.

Limited permission to tweet

Lord Judge said that the use of Twitter in courts could also be limited to journalists, rather than any member of the public, to stop large numbers of mobile phones interfering with the court’s sound recording equipment and to prevent other distractions.

His interim guidance on the use of Twitter and electronic devices in courts comes ahead of a consultation on the issue.

He said: “There is no statutory prohibition on the use of live text-based communications in open court. But before such use is permitted, the court must be satisfied that its use does not pose a danger of interference to the proper administration of justice in the individual case.

“The judge has an overriding responsibility to ensure that proceedings are conducted consistently with the proper administration of justice, and so as to avoid any improper interference with its processes.”

The guidance means that mobile phones may also be used, subject to permission, but only for the purpose of making “text-based communications” of the proceedings.

But Lord Judge said this did not mean this permission would be given in every case: “When considering, either on its own motion, or following a formal application or informal request, whether to permit live text-based communications, and if so by whom, the paramount question will be whether the application may interfere with the proper administration of justice.

“The most obvious purpose of permitting the use of live, text-based communications would be to enable the media to produce fair and accurate reports of the proceedings.

“Without being exhaustive, the danger to the administration of justice is likely to be at its most acute in the context of criminal trials for example where witnesses who are out of court may be informed of what has already happened in court.”

Transparent justice

Writer Heather Brooke, who has campaigned for greater transparency in the court system, thinks the development is a positive move: “I’m very pleased about the decision since it shows people in the judicial system seem to have realised we live in the 21st century and that people have busy lives so cannot access courtrooms in person.”

She points out that due to the steep decline in the number of court reporters over the past few years, many proceedings go unremarked meaning the public is becoming less aware of what is going on in the legal system: “I have been writing about opening up the court system to public scrutiny for years and Twitter is one way people can learn what is happening in the courts and feel engaged with the judicial process.”

Currently, much reporting of courts comes from specialised agencies and if they do not report what happens, the only way the public can find out what was said in court is by requesting a transcript. Court proceedings are recorded but transcripts of these recordings can be prohibitively expensive for many people. Charges for this service range from £150-£250 per hour of court time, which means for a single eight hour court day, costs could be up to £2,000. Additionally, before the request is even processed, enquirers must pledge to pay the full costs involved.

Allowing people to tweet from courts is a small move away from a scenario Heather Brooke thinks we should be concerned about, that of obscured justice: “We’re in danger of the justice system becoming a closed world, a cloistered sanctuary of the legal profession for which the public foots the bill.”