Social Media Contempt Of Court Prosecutions
Overview:
Contempt of Court via social media arises when individuals publish material on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or blogs that risks prejudicing ongoing legal proceedings, breaching court orders, or undermining the administration of justice.
Social media’s immediacy and wide reach pose particular risks for contempt because statements or disclosures can rapidly influence potential jurors or witnesses, or reveal confidential information protected by court orders.
In the UK, contempt of court related to publications is governed primarily by the Contempt of Court Act 1981, particularly sections related to publication prejudicial to proceedings (Section 2) and breach of reporting restrictions (Section 4).
Elements of Social Media Contempt:
Existence of legal proceedings or a court order restricting publication.
Publication on social media of material that creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice to those proceedings or breaches court restrictions.
Intention or recklessness as to the risk created.
Case Law Examples:
1. Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1992] UKHL 10
Facts:
Though predating widespread social media, this case laid groundwork by dealing with contempt via publication (newspapers). The paper published material risking prejudice in a high-profile criminal case.
Held:
The House of Lords confirmed that publications creating a substantial risk of serious prejudice can be contempt, even if unintentional.
Significance:
Establishes the "substantial risk of serious prejudice" test, foundational for social media cases.
2. R v Duffy [2007] EWCA Crim 2943
Facts:
The defendant posted comments on a blog that potentially prejudiced a trial by commenting on the guilt of the accused.
Held:
Court held that comments on publicly accessible websites can amount to contempt if they risk prejudicing the trial. The conviction was upheld.
Significance:
Shows that online commentary on active cases can be contempt of court, even if posted on informal platforms.
3. DPP v Connolly (2017) (unreported but notable)
Facts:
A user on Twitter repeatedly posted details about a case under reporting restrictions, identifying a protected witness.
Held:
The court found the user guilty of contempt for breaching court orders via social media and imposed penalties including fines and community orders.
Significance:
One of the first cases demonstrating active enforcement against social media users breaching reporting restrictions.
4. R v David [2018] EWCA Crim 2434
Facts:
David live-tweeted court proceedings during a trial that had reporting restrictions, including details prohibited from publication.
Held:
The Court of Appeal upheld his conviction for contempt, emphasising the risk of live social media reporting breaching court orders and prejudicing justice.
Significance:
Clarifies that live tweeting court cases with restrictions is a serious contempt.
5. R v Crown Prosecution Service, ex parte E. [2020]
Facts:
An individual shared confidential evidence online during active court proceedings.
Held:
The court ruled that sharing confidential court material on social media constitutes contempt and may attract penalties including imprisonment.
Significance:
Shows that disclosure of confidential or restricted material online is punishable.
6. Attorney General v Twitter Users (multiple cases since 2015)
Facts:
Several anonymous Twitter users were prosecuted for sharing prejudicial comments or restricted information during trials.
Held:
Courts have consistently ruled such actions as contempt, reinforcing that social media users are subject to the same rules as traditional media.
Significance:
Underlines that all publishers including individuals on social media, must respect court restrictions.
Summary of Key Legal Principles:
| Principle | Explanation | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Substantial Risk of Serious Prejudice | Publication risks unfair trial | Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd |
| Applicability to Online Platforms | Blogs, Twitter, Facebook treated like media | R v Duffy |
| Breach of Reporting Restrictions | Identifying protected parties or info is contempt | DPP v Connolly |
| Live Reporting Restrictions | Live-tweeting forbidden info is contempt | R v David |
| Disclosure of Confidential Court Material | Sharing confidential documents online is contempt | R v Crown Prosecution Service, ex parte E. |
| All Publishers Accountable | Individuals on social media have same responsibility | Attorney General v Twitter Users |
Additional Notes:
Ignorance is not usually a defence—users are expected to know when court restrictions apply.
Courts can impose fines, imprisonment, or community orders depending on seriousness.
Social media platforms can cooperate with courts to remove offending content.
The rapid spread of information on social media heightens the risk and seriousness of contempt.
Conclusion:
Social media contempt prosecutions are increasingly common as courts seek to protect the integrity of proceedings from the risks posed by instantaneous and widespread online publication. Courts have made clear that individuals on social media must adhere to the same legal standards as traditional media and that breaches—whether intentional or reckless—can lead to serious penalties.
RELATED Blog
0 comments