Legal Issues : all administrators/mods need to be aware of these issues

hinault

I am copying this article from yesterday's Guardian newspaper concerning how the use (abuse) of the internet/message boards is impacting the judicial process in the UK and the fact that verdicts have been appealed for abuse of internet usage.

This article might inform the administrators/moderators with regard to site content for ongoing legal cases and discussion of judical processes on websites.

I hope that this is of interest.


Juries are a fundamental pillar of our justice system. But many believe that jurors are now routinely accessing and distributing so much prejudicial information online, that the very integrity of the system is in danger

In 1670, two men named William Penn and William Mead stood trial at the Old Bailey, charged with sedition after leading Quaker prayer services in a London street. The judge, Sir Samuel Starling – also London's Lord Mayor – was so incensed when the jury returned a not-guilty verdict that he had them all imprisoned.
"You shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire and tobacco," Starling is reported to have told the obstinate jury. "We will have a verdict, by the help of God, or you shall starve for it."
Unbeknown to Starling, the legacy of his tactics was to enshrine greater protection for the 12 men and women who decide a criminal trial. The independence of juries is often referred to as a "hallowed principle" of English justice – but this is now being threatened by a very modern phenomenon.

The problem, according to members of the legal profession, is that the internet has entered the jury room. Instances of jurors using search engines such as Google, and social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook, is compromising the strict rule that the only information available to them must have been carefully vetted by lawyers so as not to be "prejudicial", or likely to unfairly influence the verdict.
All juries are segregated during each day's hearings, entering and leaving court through private entrances, and eating in a dining room designated only for juries sitting in that court. Yet even in the most high-profile cases, jurors usually go home at the end of each day, making their behaviour outside the courtroom hard to monitor.

The attorney general, judges and lawyers representing both prosecution and defence have all voiced their concerns. "Let us be realistic and address the access jurors have to the internet," Lord Igor Judge, the head of the judiciary in England and Wales, said recently. "Nowadays, judges [direct] the jury not to look at the internet in connection with the trial. [But] inevitably, from time to time, an individual juror will disregard the direction and make his own private enquiries."

The consequences of such enquiries can be serious. In 2005, a man named Adem Karakaya stood trial for repeatedly raping and indecently assaulting a 14-year-old girl. The girl gave evidence against him and the jury found Karakaya guilty. After the verdict, however, a jury bailiff found internet printouts in the jury room, including – ironically – several about the difficulty of obtaining rape convictions. The case went to the court of appeal, where Lord Judge and two other justices decided the conviction was unsafe. He was acquitted in a retrial.
"The introduction of extraneous material [into the jury room] contravened very well-established principles," Lord Judge said in his judgment. "The internet has many benefits and we do not mean to diminish its value . . . It can, however, provide material which may influence a juror's views. If used for research purposes during the trial, it can just as easily influence the juror's mind as a discussion with a friend or neighbour."

Since the Karakaya case, judges now give explicit instructions at the beginning of a trial that jurors should not look up anything connected with the case on the internet – and, in the most serious cases, sometimes repeat this instruction at the end of each day's proceedings. But lawyers say this is not always enough.
"It is becoming a big problem, particularly in cases involving disputed expert evidence," says Eleanor Laws, a barrister at Six Pump court chambers who prosecuted Karakaya. "Or, more disastrously, if there has been sensational and prejudicial reporting of the case or an earlier related case, those details may still be found on the internet. Unless a juror informs the court that another juror has conducted internet research, or – as in Karakaya – the material is discovered, it is impossible to police."
"This has been a problem for years," another lawyer with extensive experience of criminal trials confirms. "I know one juror who said the first thing he did when he got home from court was to look the case up on the internet."
The high-profile trial last year of Steven Barker, Jason Owen and Tracey Connelly, the defendants ultimately convicted of causing the death of Peter Connelly ("Baby P"), was almost jeopardised by internet sites which revealed their identities and campaigned for justice in the case. The authorities were forced to take unprecedented steps to restrict details available online, with the attorney general, police, prosecutors and lawyers all working to ensure prejudicial information was removed from the internet.
"There are things we can do – it's already happening," the attorney general, Baroness Scotland, told the Guardian during the Baby P trial. "We are taking down names and addresses from the internet, and we are working with service providers. People may think they can get away with breaching court orders, but I would say to those people: I wouldn't want to mess around if I were them."

Such efforts to police the information available does not always prevent jurors from doing private research, however. One juror recently approached a journalist at the end of a trial, asking which paper she wrote for and then complimenting her reporting as "a very good summary of events". The juror admitted they had found out more important background by doing some surreptitious Googling.

And last year, a juror hearing a case about criminal property looked the defendant up online and discovered he had a previous conviction for money laundering. The defendant was found guilty, but had his conviction overturned because, the court of appeal said, the juror had failed to comply with the "spirit" of the judge's instructions – and the rest of the jury had done the same by not reporting the wayward juror until three weeks later. Knowledge of the defendant's previous convictions could have led to the jury forming an unfair "adverse view" of the defendant, the court said.

The concerns of lawyers are not limited to the UK. Research in New Zealand has found that jurors often seek out publicity about trials and conduct their own investigations. And in the US – where Barack Obama has just successfully deferred his call to serve on the jury at Cook County circuit court in southern Chicago – jurors have been discovered posting messages on Twitter including "my brain is dying from sitting in this juror room . . . uugh!!!" and "loving this juror thing, its like law & order. I know what I want to be now when I grow up."
"Just got done with day 2 of jury duty," another tweet said. "Back at it tomorrow morning at 845 am . . . who dunn it? I dunno . . ." Yet another came as the verdict was being decided: "Deliberating!! I think I've reached my decision! But does everyone agree???"
In response, America's supreme court is considering the most explicit instructions yet banning jurors from using the internet in conjunction with a case. "I want to stress," the proposed script says, "that this rule means you must not use electronic devices or computers to communicate about this case, including tweeting, texting, blogging, e-mailing, posting information on a website or chatroom, or any other means at all."

But is it realistic for courts to place such expectations on people, particularly the young, who are less and less used to listening to information presented orally, preferring to look up anything they are vaguely curious about online? Furthermore, the difficulty of jurors presiding over complex fraud trials – following numeric evidence over a period that often stretches to months – is also cited as a reason that trial by jury is not up to the demands of modern criminal justice.

"It is perhaps unrealistic to expect that the judicial direction not to research the case on the internet will always be followed," said Laws. "You can warn the jury that they will be in contempt of court, but short of really heavy-handed threats that their computers could be seized – which will never happen – I'm not sure what else the court can do."
This is a view endorsed by the lord chief justice: "We are hardly likely to welcome a suggestion that the technological equipment belonging to an individual juror should somehow be vetted. Such an intrusion would be *entirely unacceptable."

And yet the ever-more unrestrained behaviour of jurors, compared with their more obedient counterparts of yesteryear, continues to cause concern. Last year, Guardian reporter Helen Pidd witnessed scenes she described as "extraordinary" when covering the libel battle between Express owner Richard Desmond and the biographer Tom Bower.
"After delivering a majority verdict in favour of Bower, the jury mobbed him in the corridor outside the courtroom at the royal courts of justice," said Pidd. "Bower lapped up the attention, thanked the jurors for delivering justice, and promised each a free copy of his next book if they emailed him."

Another serious threat to the trial-by-jury system remains the intimidation of jurors – albeit no longer by judges such as Sir Samuel Starling back in 1670. Earlier this month, the first ever crown court trial in England and Wales to go ahead without a jury began to hear the case of a Heathrow robbery, after the previous trial had collapsed because of suspected jury tampering. According to the police, another jury trial could only have been held if up to 82 police officers were deployed to protect the jurors, at a cost of up to £6m.
Yet this case has, in fact, led to a strong outpouring of support for the system of trial by jury, confirming its "hallowed" status in English criminal law. Instead, if jurors continue to tweet, blog or Facebook their views, Google the facts of a case and research its background online, the real threat to the future of juries may come from within.

FarmerGreen

And so because of this, people may no longer talk to each other?

Overheal

Short version: Jurors use Tweet and Google, **** up the integrity of the system.

I dont see how this affects boards.. or, twitter. Or google. Personally.

It should affect how a Jury is operated, but it shouldnt impact this website that much. If at all, correct?

Boards.ie rarely if ever Breaks any News. Its not a journalist website. I could see how this affects Journalists and how much information they are allowed to publish preceeding a trial. At most I could see Boards Moderation needing to ask users to stay quiet if they know many/any first hand details of a pending court case. But I dont see why we would be barred from discussing information that has been otherwise published.

hinault

FarmerGreen wrote: »

And so because of this, people may no longer talk to each other?

I am not suggesting that people cannot talk.

I cited the said article for mods/administrators here, to be aware of how the content of the internet/websites and accessing same, has caused problems in the judicial process.
That's all.

Zaph

To be honest, I don't see how a story being discussed on Boards, or an online newspaper report, can be deemed prejudicial to the outcome of a trial. Surely it's the actions of the juror who accessed the information that causes the problem? All a newspaper, tv station or website can do is report and/or analyse the story. They have no control over who accesses it. A jury will be told to stay away from anything that might reveal more details of the case, but human curiosity is a hard thing to suppress. Maybe the fault is with the court system itself, and that jurors should be sequestered overnight during trials rather than being allowed home, but that causes a whole different set of problems.

Tragedy

I think the only relevance of this is to ensure that mods continue to clamp down on people who post unsubstantiated/uncorroborated 'facts' about current court cases that isn't out in the public domain.

Overheal

Tragedy wrote: »

I think the only relevance of this is to ensure that mods continue to clamp down on people who post unsubstantiated/uncorroborated 'facts' about current court cases that isn't out in the public domain.

They do try. But the volume of posts in high profile cases for instance is staggering and uncorroborated jabs can often get left nestled inside posts like "This guy is a filthy scumbag" etc. "Cut off his testicles!" etc.

GuanYin

Overheal wrote: »

Short version: Jurors use Tweet and Google, **** up the integrity of the system.

wow... you read that????

Overheal

GuanYin wrote: »

wow... you read that????

Its been a slow night.

nesf

Overheal wrote: »

Its been a slow night.

Tell me about it. Fortunately I've discovered Peggle much to the shame of my serious gamer persona..

Tristram

Lots of people are stupid => Lots of jurors are stupid

Surprisingly, stupid people do stupid things. Let's stupiding!

Darragh

Hinault, thank you very much for that. I've had a read of it and I'll forward it around. We have a policy of not allowing talk of active court cases anyways (it's against the law AFAIK) but it's always good to see the most up to date teachings on these things.

Really appreciate you taking the time to do that, thanks!

pickarooney

There is something seriously messed up with a judicial system that considers someone innocent just because someone in the jury knew they were guilty.

Terry

Overheal wrote: »

Short version: Jurors use Tweet and Google, **** up the integrity of the system.

I dont see how this affects boards.. or, twitter. Or google. Personally.

It should affect how a Jury is operated, but it shouldnt impact this website that much. If at all, correct?

Boards.ie rarely if ever Breaks any News. Its not a journalist website. I could see how this affects Journalists and how much information they are allowed to publish preceeding a trial. At most I could see Boards Moderation needing to ask users to stay quiet if they know many/any first hand details of a pending court case. But I dont see why we would be barred from discussing information that has been otherwise published.

What Darragh said about ongoing cases.
For my entire time on this site, discussion about ongoing cases has been (rightly) forbidden.

Like you said, we have nothing to worry about.

Overheal

nesf wrote: »

Tell me about it. Fortunately I've discovered Peggle much to the shame of my serious gamer persona..

Plants Vs. Zombies pisses all over Peggle

FarmerGreen

hinault wrote: »

I am not suggesting that people cannot talk.
I cited the said article for mods/administrators here, to be aware of how the content of the internet/websites and accessing same, has caused problems in the judicial process.
That's all.

Fair enough.
If the judicial process has problems with peoeple going about their lawfull business, then its their problem not ours.
Sub judice, libel, slander,threats, harrasment are dealt with by the mods. Surely.

Tigger

tltr

are we all stopping teh justice

[wanders off back to after hours before more injustices are done by this potential juror]

Overheal

So thats why we couldn't name and shame PCGuy here: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055779151

Of course now, he's probably going to be taken to court so its gone from a bitchfest to a lawsuit

copacetic

pickarooney wrote: »

There is something seriously messed up with a judicial system that considers someone innocent just because someone in the jury knew they were guilty.

the system considers them innocent, unless they are proven guilty. The jury decides that.

Someone ignoring a judges orders and searching for background data on the trial. Then using the information found on the internet (that may or may not be true) to influence the other jurors makes any verdict that jury returned unsafe.

pickarooney

Realistically it's no less safe than a verdict passed where one juror just plain doesn't like the look of the defendant, but this is for another thread.