New campaign aims to combat online contempt of court

The #ThinkBeforeYouPost campaign, which begins today (June 28), aims to highlight the dangers of committing contempt of court online. The campaign will provide advice and guidance on what information, if posted publicly, could leave social media users at risk of being held in contempt of court.

It will make it clear that same rules apply to members of the public as they do to journalists, regardless of how the information is made public.

The campaign has been set up in response to growing concerns that, while many social media users understand what can and cannot be posted online in relation to active cases, a significant number do not.

This became especially clear following the disappearance of Sarah Everard and the subsequent arrest of a serving police officer, which prompted a large amount of speculation about what had happened on various social media channels, all of which risked interfering with the case.

Mr Ellis said: “Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and everyone deserves a fair trial. The issue is really about discussing matters which should only be raised for the first time in front of the jury.

“A misjudged tweet or post could have grave repercussions and interfere with a trial. A post on social media could mean a trial is delayed or at worst stopped because a fair trial isn’t possible – so I would caution everyone, don’t get in the way of justice being done.

“It is not only journalists or lawyers who can be found in contempt of court, ordinary members of the public can also do so and find themselves facing their own legal consequences.”

“We all have the right to discuss and comment on what we see and hear in the news, as long as we stay on the right side of the law. These laws are in place to ensure that a trial can take place unimpeded, and not be postponed or aborted.

“Aborted trials affect not only the defendant, but also the victims and witnesses who will then have to go through an often-traumatic experience all over again.”

The campaign will run on social media between June 28 and July 2 and use the hashtag #ThinkBeforeYouPost.

Case studies:

• In July 2015, two teenage girls were put on trial for the murder of Angela Wrightson. Due to the age of the defendants, they were granted anonymity and referred to by their initials (D&F). After only two days, the judge suspended the trial after hundreds of posts purporting to reveal the identities of the two girls appeared on social media. Aborting the trial cost the public tens of thousands of pounds and led to justice being delayed. Both defendants were subsequently jailed for a minimum of 15 years in April 2016 following a reconstituted trial at Leeds Crown Court.
• In March 2019, a woman was found guilty of contempt of court after she published information and photographs online purporting to be of Jon Venables. A court order restricting the publication of any material likely to lead to the identification of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson has been in place since 2001. It is meant not only to protect Venables and Thompson but also those members of the public who have been incorrectly identified as being either of them. The woman initially claimed that she had no idea that it was against the law to post the images. She pleaded guilty at her trial and was sentenced to eight months in prison, suspended for two years. She was also ordered to pay costs of £10,000. Contempt proceedings for breaching the same court order have also been brought against at eight other persons in recent years.
• In August 2019, despite signs warning against recording the proceedings, a woman streamed more than an hour’s footage from her partner’s Crown Court trial to Facebook. This footage was downloaded hundreds of times. At her High Court hearing in October 2020 the woman apologised for her actions, claiming that she was unaware of the laws around recording court proceedings. However, the court found that she had been warned against recording the trial the week before it started. In February 2021, she was sentenced to a four-month prison term, suspended for two years, and ordered to pay £500 in costs, after being found in contempt of court.

See also: Anti social media?