ANALYSIS:MOBILE EMAIL, social media and internet-enabled laptops may be used to report live from court cases subject to the permission of the courts and certain restrictions, according to interim guidelines just issued by the Chief Justice of England and Wales.
Fuller guidelines are likely to follow an extensive consultation on the subject which will involve the judiciary, the secretary of state for justice, the attorney general, the director of public prosecutions, the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Press Complaints Commission, the Society of Editors and interested members of the public.
The guidelines, issued last December with immediate effect, are intended to be considered by courts, litigants, legal representatives and the media when any applications are made for the use of live, text-based communications.
Those guidelines have been drafted in the light of existing prohibitions on the taking of photographs in court and the use of sound recording equipment. The latter may be permitted if the court allows it.
Because there is no similar statutory prohibition on the use of live, text-based communications the court should approach this in the same way as allowing sound recording, according to the guidelines.
Provided there is no danger of interference to the proper administration of justice, the use of an unobtrusive, hand-held, virtually silent piece of equipment for the purposes of simultaneous reporting proceedings to the outside world as they unfold in court will be permitted.
An application can therefore be made by an individual in court to activate and use a mobile phone (normally prohibited), small laptop or similar piece of equipment solely in order to make live text-based communications of the proceedings.
When considering the application, the paramount consideration for the judge will be whether it may interfere with the proper administration of justice.
The purpose of giving permission would be to enable the media to produce fair and accurate reports.
The danger to the administration of justice could lie in informing witnesses of what had already happened in court and so coaching or briefing them before they give evidence. It could also arise if a Twitter post contained inadmissible evidence that could influence members of a jury.
In civil cases, simultaneous reporting from the courtroom may create pressure on witnesses, distracting or worrying them, according to the guidelines.
The guidelines say that permission to use the equipment could be withdrawn if the court proceedings were adversely affected by the communications.
It may also be necessary for the judge to limit the use of such communications to the media alone, disallowing it by the wider public in court.
This might arise if it was necessary to limit the number of mobile electronic devices because of the potential for electronic interference with the court’s own sound recording equipment, or if the widespread use of such devices could cause a distraction in the proceedings.
A spokesman for the Courts Service said that the rules of court in Ireland were silent on the matter and, as far as he knew, the matter had not arisen in an Irish court case.