OPEN JUSTICE: The Risk of Live Tweeting and A Defendant’s Expectation of a Fair Trial.
One of the major concerns of English courts is the use of social networks in judicial proceedings. This is to a large extent, believed to hinder fair trial. According to previous cases, this could accrue to penalties of $22000 and in extreme cases, jail time.1 Concerns were raised on the use of social media and it was arguable if this was in fact a step in the wrong direction. One instance where the court showed concerns was in Attorney General v Fraill. 2 The case involved exchanging Facebook messages with the accused while acting as a juror. In light of this, one could argue that the use of social media most importantly live tweeting is very likely to hinder fair trial. This essay aims to explore to what extent the use of social networking –precisely live tweeting affects the fair hearing of defendants in an open justice system and if the use of live tweeting is indeed a step in the wrong direction in criminal trials. It will further explore the justifications of banning the use of live tweeting. The concept of open justice ensures that judicial proceedings are made open to the public.3 Although this characteristic is entitled to various advantages, one of which is transparency, it is important to note the setbacks that accompany it. One important factor is arguably the influence on juries. In addition to this, the likely inaccuracies or personal bias bound to be involved in live tweeting mean there is a daily risk of unfair trial. Juries and judges are a social construction, as such they may be exposed to media contents which could likely cloud fair and rational judgment. In as much as the chances of a misjudgment arising from media influence are minimal, the 1 Courts and Other Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2012 (NSW), Schedule 1 Item 1.8. 2 Attorney General v Fraill and Stewart [2011] EWHC 1629 (Admin) 3 Courts and Other Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2012 (NSW), Schedule 1 Item 1.8.
1