How to Strengthen Contempt Laws - Article Example

Public law: Strengthen Contempt laws By 3, March Strengthen Contempt laws A recent tweet by Rio Ferdinand ridiculing a prosecution witness The objective of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (CCA) was to deter people from commenting on matters before the court. The objective of this was to ensure that the accused received a fair trial. It provides parameters within which the public can comment on matter before the court. However, the act was designed for application in print and broadcast media. It did not envisage the current situations whereby the social media has become as influential as the mainstream media. Contempt of court covers several acts CCA 1981 impacts heavily on the media law. For instance, it bans publication of material which may prejudice a fair trial, for instance, publish an accused’s criminal record. Additionally, the court may make orders gagging the media from publishing on the proceedings taking place in a case. Moreover, it is an offence to disclose proceedings relating to minors, or publishing the deliberations of the jury. 1 The rise of social media Several factors have made social media more influential than mainstream media, among them the worldwide reach, low cost associated with internet, and the ability or real time communication. One single tweet can go viral within seconds. “In days gone by, it was only the mainstream media that had the opportunity to bring information relating to a court case to such a large group of people that it could put a court case at risk. That is no longer the case…” the attorney general was recently quoted saying. New Challenges posed by social Media However, social media poses a unique challenge. Currently, there exists a weak regulatory framework. The social media is currently regulated by the same laws as the mainstream media. Besides, it is very hard exert regulation over the social media. This is because of the worldwide nature of internet. A person can generally access the internet, or make a comment, from any part of the world. This means that discussions or conversations concerning criminal cases that once took place in gardens or clubs now have a global platform now. Consequently, it’s hard for any one country to exert jurisdiction over the internet. The attorney general has appreciated this fact. “Blogs and social media sites like Twitter and Facebook mean that individuals can now reach thousands of people with a single tweet or post. This is an exciting prospect, but it can pose certain challenges to the criminal justice system,” stated the attorney general, Dominic Grieve QC.2 Besides this, it is very easy to surf the internet anonymously. Tracing such people, therefore, is hard if not impossible. Therefore, regulating social media is a wide mandate, involving individual internet users and internet services providers. Another factor that makes social media unique is the fact that main players in the sector are laymen; teenagers, youths, adults and members of the public ignorant on the existing laws. This is unlike the mainstream media which consist of trained journalists who appreciate the legal framework and are bound by ethics and controlled by their peers or editors to stop them. For instance, last year nine people were prosecuted for posting online the name of a woman who was allegedly raped by former footballer Ched Evans. All the nine claimed that they did not know that it was a criminal offence to identify a victim of a sexual offence but as the lawyers say, ignorance of law is no defence. Attorney General Directive The attorney general has recognised this existing legal gap. He undertook to publish guidelines for social media users to ensure that they did not find themselves on the wrong side of the law while commenting on matters before the court.3 While these guidelines are not meant to gag the public, they are meant to only guide people to help the, not break the law inadvertently. The attorney general took to the twitter to give his directives Need for Reform Jury trial systems are widely regarded as essential safeguards of freedom of the people. However, they are increasingly prone to prejudicial materials made by third parties outside the court. The American trial of OJ Simpsons demonstrates this, where public opinion and sentiments swayed the jury’s decisions.4 In a recent murder case involving the death of teenager Trayvon Martins, the attention of the whole world was drawn to the case by the social media. Laws governing the mainstream media have developed over a long time. The society has to do the same to social media. The public must be ready not just to create the laws, but public understanding as well. The court must be given powers to order the removal of electronic material from newspaper websites which are prejudicial and likely to compromise on-going trials. The Law Reform Commission has argued that new criminal offences need to be created in order to stem jurors from conducting research over cases online. However, as aptly argued by some analysts, it shall be very hard to enforce such rules. Well, things have changed greatly since 1981 especially following the advent of technology which has made reporting real time and a global affair. The present regime needs not only to be enforced more rigorously, but serious reforms need to be carried out in order to protect jurors from external influence and access to prejudicial material. Such effort cannot be undertaken in isolation by a single country, as it would be fighting a losing battle. There is need of an international regime as internet is the greatest source of trans-boundary crimes. In conclusion, the law on contempt of court needs a fresh rethinking. Since enactment of CCA, a lot has changed. The law must not be rigid, but rather must constantly change to reflect the changing trends. CCA is not adequate. Without real reforms, social media will ran amok. The jury trial will be at risk, while fairness and integrity of court trial shall be questionable. Read More