what the hell does this mean?

“The statutory question for this court posed by s.2(2) of the [Contempt of Court Act 1981] is whether the publication created a substantial risk that the course of justice will be substantially impeded or prejudiced. It is not the statutory question posed by s.2 (1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, namely whether the conviction was unsafe. The Court of Appeal looks back and considers the impact of the publication in the context of the history of the trial, the nature of the evidence and the directions given by the judge. The Divisional Court is required to look forward and to assess risk. It must be acknowledged that both the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal Criminal Division must be consistent in their recognition of the ability of a jury to put aside extraneous material (they should not speak with two voices, said Simon Brown LJ in Unger 318). But the trust which is placed on juries to do so cannot always be relied upon by those whose publications put the prospects of a fair trial at substantial risk. The publisher who has created such a risk cannot always rely upon the steps taken to allay the very risk it has created. …
“54 The criminal courts have been troubled by the dangers to the integrity and fairness of a criminal trial, where juries can obtain such easy access to the internet and to other forms of instant communication. Once information is published on the internet, it is difficult if not impossible completely to remove it. Harvey J in New Zealand described the ‘viral nature’ of information on the internet (Police v PIK and Others Manuku Youth Court, 25 August 2008, cited in Trying Times: The Right to a Fair Trial in the Changing Media Environment, Elvidge, University of Otago dissertation, October 2008). Whilst in this case we have not been satisfied that a juror could have been told about the photograph by someone who had obtained access to the article through ‘Twitter’ or by registration to receive an ‘RSS feed’, the ability to obtain news by such means must be acknowledged. There are those who rely upon research to doubt whether juries obey the prohibition not to search the internet (Are Juries Fair? Professor Cheryl Thomas, Ministry of Justice Research series 1/10, published February 2010). The courts, while trusting a jury to obey a prohibition on consulting the internet, have been concerned to meet the problem. This case demonstrates the need to recognise that instant news requires instant and effective protection for the integrity of a criminal trial.” (Attorney General v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 418 (Admin).)

Reply 1

TSR Learn Together

Official Rep

Hi there,

While you're waiting for an answer, did you know we have 300,000 study resources that could answer your question in TSR's Learn together section?

We have everything from Teacher Marked Essays to Mindmaps and Quizzes to help you with your work. Take a look around.

If you're stuck on how to get started, try creating some resources. It's free to do and can help breakdown tough topics into manageable chunks. Get creating now.

Thanks!

Not sure what all of this is about? Head here to find out more.

what the hell does this mean?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you