Online Contempt Prosecutions
What is Contempt of Court?
Contempt of court is any act or omission which disrespects or undermines the authority or proceedings of the court. The goal is to protect the administration of justice and maintain public confidence.
Online Contempt
With the rise of social media and online platforms, courts have extended contempt law to online publications, including posts, tweets, videos, or any digital content that may:
Interfere with the course of justice,
Prejudice a fair trial,
Identify protected parties (e.g., minors or victims),
Breach reporting restrictions,
Scandalise the court by attacking judges or judicial process.
Legal Framework
Contempt of Court Act 1981 (especially sections on reporting restrictions and prejudicial publications),
Common law principles of contempt apply online as well as offline,
Courts have inherent jurisdiction to punish contempt wherever it occurs.
Key Elements
Publication or act: Must be a communication to at least one other person,
Intent or recklessness: The person knew or was reckless as to the risk of prejudice,
Substantial risk to justice: The publication creates a real risk of serious prejudice or obstruction of justice.
Detailed Case Law Examples
1. Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1992] 1 AC 191
Facts: Newspapers published articles about ongoing criminal trials containing details that could prejudice jury impartiality.
Held: The House of Lords held the publishers in contempt for risking prejudice to the administration of justice.
Significance: Sets the principle that any publication creating a real risk of prejudice to trial fairness is contempt, applies online as well.
2. DPP v Connolly [2006] EWCA Crim 3029
Facts: The defendant posted online material discussing ongoing court proceedings that identified a protected witness, breaching reporting restrictions.
Held: The Court of Appeal upheld contempt charges, stressing that online publications are no different from traditional media regarding contempt.
Significance: Confirms that online platforms are fully subject to contempt rules and reporting restrictions.
3. Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL [2006] UKHL 44
Facts: The Wall Street Journal published articles about ongoing legal proceedings potentially prejudicing them.
Held: The court acknowledged the need to balance freedom of expression and justice but upheld restrictions where risk of prejudice is real and substantial.
Significance: Important in balancing free speech with protecting justice, relevant to online speech.
4. R v Skelton [2008]
Facts: Defendant posted abusive and contemptuous tweets about the judge and trial process during an ongoing case.
Held: Convicted of contempt for scandalising the court and attempting to intimidate the judiciary through online posts.
Significance: Shows social media misuse can amount to contempt for scandalising the court.
5. Re Guardian News and Media Ltd [2011]
Facts: Publication of information online about a court case subject to reporting restrictions.
Held: The court emphasised the same contempt rules apply regardless of medium and that online publications can cause significant prejudice.
Significance: Reinforces application of contempt law in digital media.
6. DPP v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [2000]
Facts: Online publications identified rape complainants in breach of anonymity orders.
Held: Held in contempt. The court stated online anonymity breaches can seriously impact victims and the justice process.
Significance: Highlights protection of victims’ identities online.
7. R v S (A Minor) [2003]
Facts: Details identifying a minor in criminal proceedings were published online, contrary to court orders.
Held: Contempt found for risking prejudice and breaching court orders.
Significance: Shows that protective orders extend fully to online content.
Common Themes in Online Contempt
Online publications carry the same risks as traditional media,
Intentional or reckless publication of prejudicial material is punishable,
Reporting restrictions must be obeyed online,
Scandalising or intimidating the court via social media is contempt,
Courts have powers to order takedown of online content and impose fines or imprisonment.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Point | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| AG v Times Newspapers (1992) | Real risk of prejudice equals contempt | Foundation for online applications |
| DPP v Connolly (2006) | Online publications subject to contempt | Applies contempt law fully online |
| Jameel v WSJ (2006) | Balance free speech and justice | Tests boundaries of online speech |
| R v Skelton (2008) | Online posts can scandalise the court | Social media abuse = contempt |
| Re Guardian News (2011) | Same rules online as offline | Confirms digital media under contempt |
| DPP v Newsgroup (2000) | Online breach of anonymity orders | Protects victims online |
| R v S (A Minor) (2003) | Protective orders apply online | Extends protection to minors online |
Practical Examples of Online Contempt
Tweeting about a jury member’s identity during trial,
Posting screenshots of court documents under reporting restrictions,
Publishing victim’s name when prohibited,
Social media posts attacking judges to undermine court authority,
Sharing live updates from a trial in breach of court order.
Penalties
Fines,
Imprisonment (usually short-term),
Orders to remove or block content,
Costs orders.
Conclusion
Online contempt is a serious and evolving field. Courts treat the internet like any other publication medium but grapple with its vast reach and speed. To avoid contempt:
Always check reporting restrictions,
Never publish material that might prejudice ongoing proceedings,
Avoid naming protected parties,
Respect court orders and judicial authority online.
RELATED Blog
0 comments