Scandalising the court - Journalism

Dasbo

Hi,

Would someone be able to outline what it means for a reporter to scandalise the court?

And also, what other restrictions apply to court reporters?

Thanks!

PCPhoto

I have no idea what you mean by "scandalise the court"

reporters are not restricted in reporting....unless the matter is held "In Camera" ...but they must only report THE FACTS that the hear in court ...and not report legal arguement.

Tom Young

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055177801&highlight=judice

See my reply.

Reloc8

PCPhoto wrote: »

I have no idea what you mean by "scandalise the court"

reporters are not restricted in reporting....unless the matter is held "In Camera" ...but they must only report THE FACTS that the hear in court ...and not report legal arguement.

What ?

That is a load of nonsense. I honestly don't know where you get this stuff from, but you can't go presenting as 'must' this and 'must not' that when its so clearly wrong (as opposed to a matter of opinion).

If a matter is heard 'in camera' it cannot be reported on at all subject to the court granting leave to do so. There is no distinction between legal argument and 'THE FACTS' in that respect. To report on 'in camera' proceedings is a contempt of court.

Are you trying to talk about voir dires in a criminal case (or any case involving a jury) ? In which case whilst the fact that legal argument is proceeding in the absence of the jury can be stated, nothing whatsoever of the content of the voir dire can (until the trial is over and then perhaps some of it might be capable of being reported) ? I don't suppose you are or you would have said so.

PCPhoto wrote: »

I have no idea what you mean by "scandalise the court"

Yes. Its a legal phrase.

In short summary the following ideas are engaged in the question.

Contempt of court in this context means the contempt which arises from the publication or making of any statements or comment which is likely to interfere with the due and proper and fair trial of any legal proceeding (DPP v Irish Press Ltd - 1977 case, unreported I think). This most often arises in respect of something (anything) which is published which could interfere with the fair trial of a specific legal proceeding.

To scandalise the court means something like what happened in AG v Ross Connolly (1947 1 IR 213) where the defendant was described as having "presented a Court (the special criminal court) to public obloquy as a mischievous and wicked sham".

To scandalise the court is a contempt of court as well. Its effect (which it is seen as necessary to punish) is to call into disrepute a court/the courts in general as opposed to impacting on any one specific proceeding before a court.

The OP should also review the Defamation Act 2009 insofar as it relates to and protects fair and accurate reports of proceedings before a court in respect of the publication of same where otherwise their publication would be defamatory.

Inmyownworld

D.P.P. v Walsh & Conneely O'Higgins CJ - "Contempt by scandalising the court is committed where what is said or done is of such a nature as to be calculated to endanger public confidences in court".
There can be criticism of the court to a certain degree of course, but not where it is "calcuated to prejudice...justice" - Ó Dálaigh CJ in Keegan v De Búrca.

Do you mean other ways where reporters can be in contempt of court or where their freedom of expression is restricted?
Look to Sub Judicae Rule for contempt of court.
Or restrictions under Article 40.6.1 of The Constitution (public order and morality) or Article 10 of the ECHR (restrictions prescribed by law; necessary in a democratic society; and have a legitimate and proportionate aim) for limits to their freedom of expression.

Delancey

Would interfering with a Barristers ' briefs ' in front of the Judge be considered to be ' scandalising the court ' ?:D

PCPhoto

Reloc8 wrote: »

What ?

That is a load of nonsense. I honestly don't know where you get this stuff from, but you can't go presenting as 'must' this and 'must not' that when its so clearly wrong (as opposed to a matter of opinion).

Firstly - I think you read my post incorrectly.

The way it was meant to read was:

Reporters are not restricted - unless the matter is held "in camera"

(When they report on a case) they MUST report the FACTS and only the FACTS and not report legal arguement.

ALSO
There is NO LEGAL ADVICE ALLOWED ON BOARDS - only your opinion can be posted...I posted my opinion.

Reloc8

PCPhoto wrote: »

Firstly - I think you read my post incorrectly.

The way it was meant to read was:

No I didn't.

I quoted you.

And you're still wrong on your further post. In camera matters are different to those to which reporting restrictions (preventing identification of the persons involved) apply and are also different to a criminal voir dire.

If someone reported the factual or legal content of an in camera matter they would be in contempt of court.

If someone reported the factual or legal content of a voir dire, they would cause the collapse of the criminal trial, and be in contempt of court.

If someone reported in a manner breaching reporting restrictions, i.e. in a manner which could lead to the identification of the person's involved, they would also be in contempt of court.

What you will see in reporting restriction cases is reports which state e.g. that a man has gone on trial for raping a woman in wicklow in 2008. The evidence given may be reported in a manner which does not lead to identification.

Where there is a voir dire The legal argument may be reported in a manner which does not jeopardise the integrity of the trial, by making the jury aware of something which has happened in their absence. The only safe way to do this during a trial is simply to state that 'the trial continued today in the absence of the jury' or words of similar effect. Neither the factual or legal content should be reported on during the trial.

Material emanating from an in camera hearing of any sort cannot however be reported on, ever, be it factual or legal in content, without leave of the court involved, which is given only in pretty exceptional cases.

PCPhoto wrote: »

ALSO
There is NO LEGAL ADVICE ALLOWED ON BOARDS - only your opinion can be posted...I posted my opinion.

Yes. Just because it is your opinion however does not mean that it is entitled to be presented by you as being correct (in fact on your own post, it is presented as being empirically correct), particularly where, with no offence to you intended, you clearly do not know enough about the area to offer that opinion in those adamant terms.

Its an important area and errors made by someone engaged in reporting etc. have the potential for extremely serious consequences, both to the reporter and to people involved in traumatic (often) and serious (always) legal cases, hence the need to correct your post.

But we're not going to fall out over it.