The use of Twitter for court reporting

Lord chief justice approves use of Twitter for court reporting | Technology | guardian.co.uk

The lord chief justice today opened the way for the reporting of some court proceedings by journalists using Twitter, texting and email, but made clear it was unlikely to happen where such use of social media could influence witnesses.

Media organisations and journalists can apply for permission to use social media on a case-by-case basis, but Lord Judge said it may be necessary to bar its use by non-journalists to ensure the "proper adminstration of justice", prevent distractions in court and limit the potential for interference with courts' own recording equipment.

Judge issued interim guidance on the use of social media pending a public consultation involving the judiciary, prosecutors, lawyers, the media and "interested members of the public". The guidance applies only to courts in England and Wales.

It follows a district judge's decision to allow the tweeting of a bail hearing for Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks chief, earlier this month. Assange faces extradition to Sweden over allegations of rape, molestation and unlawful coercion.

Judge had already been considering the issue, which he highlighted in a lecture in Belfast last month.

Under the guidance, anyone wanting to tweet from a courtroom will first need the permission of the judge, who will consider the risk posed to justice.

This would be at its highest in criminal trials where witnesses who are out of court would be able to find out what has already happened.

Lord Judge said: "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.

"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.

"Subject to this consideration, the use of an unobtrusive, handheld, virtually silent piece of modern equipment for the purposes of simultaneous reporting of proceedings to the outside world as they unfold in court is generally unlikely to interfere with the proper administration of justice."

He said the "normal, indeed almost invariable, rule has been that mobile phones must be turned off in court".

"An application, whether formally or informally made – for instance by communicating a request to the judge through court staff – can be made by an individual in court to activate and use a mobile phone, small laptop or similar piece of equipment, solely in order to make live text-based communications of the proceedings," he added.

"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, e.g. where witnesses who are out of court may be informed of what has already happened in court."

The guidance comes days after reporters covering Assange's court hearing 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 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 Westminster magistrates' court.

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