Live tweeting from trials,legal?

bigpink

Alot of live tweeting from a certain case that's ongoing but is this legal?

Victor

Unless people are running in and out of the foyer, probably not.

Also distinctly unwise, as one could end up prejudicing a trial and / or end up in prison for contempt.

bigpink

Victor wrote: »

Unless people are running in and out of the foyer, probably not.

Also distinctly unwise, as one could end up prejudicing a trial and / or end up in prison for contempt.

I'm surprised this high profile trial the judge hasn't placed a media ban

conorh91

What would the supposed illegality be based on?

bigpink

Its live and before the day of order is closed and some details are made public that prob shouldn't be

Little CuChulainn

conorh91 wrote: »

What would the supposed illegality be based on?

Contempt of court I presume.

conorh91

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Contempt of court I presume.

I doubt it.

coylemj

bigpink wrote: »

Its live and before the day of order is closed and some details are made public that prob shouldn't be

I've never heard of a judge placing an embargo until the end of the day on reporting on proceedings. I know that reporting on certain matters that are discussed in the absence of the jury is forbidden until the case is over but otherwise anything that happens in open court can surely be reported straight away?

Aside from annoying the judge by tapping on a keyboard in the courtroom, what's the legal difference between (1) scribbling notes in shorthand in the courtroom and then stepping outside to do a live link with the lunchtime news on RTE or TV3 and (2) sending tweets direct to your (RTE/TV3) editor from the courtroom?

Stormington

If Max Schrems is going to get a slap on the wrist for live-tweeting it will probably originate from the Commission rather than the CJEU judges.

If there was no media blackout ordered then it seems the court doesn't have a problem (keeping people awake in there is difficult enough already) and since most smartphones can swipes and silence options to mute keyboard noises, noise might not be an issue.

CIARAN_BOYLE

bigpink wrote: »

Alot of live tweeting from a certain case that's ongoing but is this legal?

A UK court held some members of the press in contempt a few years ago, no strict statute either here or in the UK but well within a judges rights to decide to hold someone in contempt for tweeting, use of phone, etc.

conorh91

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

A UK court held some members of the press in contempt a few years ago

Was there a restriction order or similar prior to their use of twitter?

Would the comments have been sufficient to constitute contempt if they had been published in a newspaper?

Twitter is now well-ingrained into the life of the superior courts. Although there has been some frustration expressed extra-judicially and from the bench, the very fact that this has not amounted to findings of contempt, and that twitter is thriving in both court complexes, is worth noting.

Marcusm

coylemj wrote: »

I've never heard of a judge placing an embargo until the end of the day on reporting on proceedings. I know that reporting on certain matters that are discussed in the absence of the jury is forbidden until the case is over but otherwise anything that happens in open court can surely be reported straight away?

Aside from annoying the judge by tapping on a keyboard in the courtroom, what's the legal difference between (1) scribbling notes in shorthand in the courtroom and then stepping outside to do a live link with the lunchtime news on RTE or TV3 and (2) sending tweets direct to your (RTE/TV3) editor from the courtroom?

Was such an instruction not given to gallery members in the Graham Dwyer case relating to discussions in the absence of the jury. Surely there are no general restrictions unless the reporting was of such a nature to influence the outcome.

MarkAnthony

An aside I grant you but I'm surprised how lax the Irish Courts are on phones etc. There's a travel agents around the corner from the Old Bailey that does a great line in 'phone minding', members of the public aren't even allowed in the building with them.

bigpink

Can't believe the level of tweeting in the graham Dwyer case

plodder

I tuned in to the twitter feed for a while yesterday and it was notable that the bona-fide reporters seemed to be doing a great job of it. If anything, it was randomers who clearly weren't in the court room, who were making comments that were much more inappropriate.

eigrod

Where would the accused be when the jury are out deliberating in a case such as the current high profile one ?

Uno my Uno.

eigrod wrote: »

Where would the accused be when the jury are out deliberating in a case such as the current high profile one ?

Sitting in the coffee shop, waiting with everyone else I expect. I believe he is on bail so he isn't in custody, he arrives at the courthouse everyday same as everyone else and then goes to sit in the Dock when proceedings begin each morning.

conorh91

He's been in custody throughout the trial.

Carriages at 4pm every evening.

Uno my Uno.

conorh91 wrote: »

He's been in custody throughout the trial.

Carriages at 4pm every evening.

Hadn't realised that. Are there holding cels at the CCJ for lunch breaks etc or would an accused just be escorted to the cafe?

BasedHobbes

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

Hadn't realised that. Are there holding cels at the CCJ for lunch breaks etc or would an accused just be escorted to the cafe?

I think the CCJ has some form of holding cells for that purpose.

Peregrinus

conorh91 wrote: »

He's been in custody throughout the trial.

The defendant in this particular case is in custody. But it's not uncommon that, even on a fairly serious charge, the defendant is on bail until convicted and in such a case, yes, of course, he has the same lunch options as everyone else. And he goes home in the evenings and comes in again the next day.

my friend

Marcusm wrote: »

Was such an instruction not given to gallery members in the Graham Dwyer case relating to discussions in the absence of the jury. Surely there are no general restrictions unless the reporting was of such a nature to influence the outcome.

Did you actually read the post you responded to?

Little CuChulainn

The CCJ has a massive amount of cells and a good supply of breakfast and lunch rolls delivered for prisoners and staff.

conorh91

Peregrinus wrote: »

it's not uncommon that, even on a fairly serious charge, the defendant is on bail until convicted

It is in cases of murder, it is very uncommon. It tends to be limited to fratricides and spousal murders, if at all, which are crimes with highly specific motivations.

Uno my Uno.

conorh91 wrote: »

It is in cases of murder, it is very uncommon. It tends to be limited to fratricides and spousal murders, if at all, which are crimes with highly specific motivations.

I was sitting in on a murder case a few years ago and stunned to see the accused sitting in the cafe chatting with his family during the break for lunch.he was on bail at that point, it must have been very difficult for the family of the victim who were sitting only a few tables away. I mentioned to a friend of mine who practises at the criminal bar who told me it wasn't uncommon (although in fairness I don't think he necessarily meant that in relation to murder cases.) I should point out that the case itself was quite different to the one discussed here. It related to an assault, He was accused of murder by way of shared endeavour and was obviously not considered a risk on bail.

Peregrinus

conorh91 wrote: »

It is in cases of murder, it is very uncommon. It tends to be limited to fratricides and spousal murders, if at all, which are crimes with highly specific motivations.

In general an accused has a right to bail, which can only be denied for specified reasons. The reasons are (a) that the accused is a flight risk, (b) that there is a risk of the accused interfering with witnesses, or otherwise acting to impede his own trial, or (c) "refusal [of bail] is reasonably considered necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offence by that person". (Bail Act 1997, s. 2.) The courts are usually a bit cautious about denying bail on the third ground, if only for the pragmatic reason that prisons are overcrowded; you can only lock up someone who you fear might commit a crime in the future by releasing someone who has actually commmitted, and been convicted of, a crime in the past.

In each case, it's not enough to point out that the accused could skip the country, or interfere with witnesses, or commit a new offence; there have to be facts and circumstances which give rise to a fear that this will happen. Obviously the more serious the charge against you, the greater the incentive to flee. On the other hand, the stronger your roots in and links to the community, the less likely you are to flee. So different circumstances have to be balanced against one another.

As you say, those accuse of "family" murders (which is a fairly high proportion of all those accused of murder) are, of all murder accused, the most likely to get bail. They rarely present a risk of new offences, and they often have strong family and social links which make it unlikely that they will flee. On the other hand, where somebody with a history of offending is accused of murder in a context which suggests organised criminal activity, all the boxes are checked; bail is unlikely.

In the Dwyer case there was a bail application. Dwyer had no previous convictions, a wife, a family, a home, a mortgage and no contact with the kinds of network that can help you to disappear. Realistically, he was not a flight risk. And there was no real chance that he could interfere with the prosecution; he wasn't in a position to pressure witnesses or tamper with evidence. The guards gave evidence that they feared further offences if he were bailed. We know now that on his computer they had found videos of him engaged in sadistic sex not only with the victim in this case, but with other women who have still been neither identified or located. You can understand where their concern was coming from.