We made an application, via the Judicial Press Office, the day before, to cover the court case live from the court room, as we understood that recent changes to court protocol had allowed this. They in-turn forwarded it to the judge.

Immediate response – No
During the opening of the court hearing, Judge Pearl raised the subject and announced that his immediate response was “No”.

He felt that as recording or photos weren’t allowed, the same reasoning should be applied to live tweeting. The details were “contemporaneous” in his view.

He then asked both the applicant and defence teams what their views were.

Legal teams asked
The legal team on the Applicant decided not to pursue it (possibly out of a desire not to irritate the judge – some what understandable).

The defence barrister said he agreed with the reasoning of the judge and the applicant team, not adding anything more.

One quote I wrote down was that details might “come out in a misleading way”.

“Only short”
The judge said that, as the court case was “only short” (projected to take only 1.5 hours, it took over three and a half hours in the end), live coverage wasn’t needed, so it “could be reported after”.

I asked the judge if it would be OK to send a quick update, alerting VB readers that I wouldn’t be able to cover it live, to which he said no.

While I left the court to do the update, I later heard that a reporter for the Press Association, John Aston, addressed the court, pointing out to the judge that the Julian Assange extradition hearings case had allowed live tweeting. I was told that this was news to Judge Pearl.

Lord Chief Justice Interim guidance
Back at the end of last year, Lord Judge, The Lord Chief Justice addressed this very subject through an Interim practice guidance, as reported in a number of places, including Journalism.co.uk on 20 December 2010:

The Interim practice guidance says

10. There is no statutory prohibition on the use of live text-based communications in open court. But before such use is permitted, the court must be satisfied that its use does not pose a danger of interference to the proper administration of justice in the individual case.

11. Subject to this consideration, the use of an unobtrusive, hand held, virtually silent piece of modern equipment for the purposes of simultaneous reporting of proceedings to the outside world as they unfold in court is generally unlikely to interfere with the proper administration of justice.

At the end of point 13 he says, “The most obvious purpose of permitting the use of live, text-based communications would be to enable the media to produce fair and accurate reports of the proceedings.”

How can we alert judges?
We’re very aware that judges have a lot to keep on top of on a daily basis, so wonder if there’s a simple way for them to be made aware of the current thinking on live court coverage?

This article first appeared on Ventnor Blog here.

Meeja Law comment: As VB reports this issue came up during Julian Assange’s appeal for bail in December 2010. As Meeja Law reported at the time, it was not the first instance of live tweeting from court although it might have been the first time a newspaper was granted specific permission. Ben Kendall (@benjkendall) crime reporter for the Eastern Daily Press in Norfolk had tweeted from court before, albeit without additional permission from the judge, in August 2010.

The Ventnor Blog, which won TalkAboutLocal’s ‘Best Hyperlocal site in the UK’ award in 2010, has received legal letters from the council asking it to remove several readers’ comments from its site.

VB has a post-moderation policy and has since complied with the requests. It takes issue, however, with the use of council resources to write these letters – and its threat to remove the site’s media accreditation.

The local news site has previously run into access issues on the island, when the Coroner refused to allow VB’s Simon Perry into his court – but permitted the local newspaper, the Isle of Wight County Press, to stay.

Meeja Law contacted both VB and the Isle of Wight Council to find out more about the recent exchange of emails.

At the heart of the issue is the council’s objection to VB moderating its user-generated comments after,  rather than before, publication.

While the council did not wish to reveal the details of its recent correspondence with Ventnor Blog, it confirmed it had issued two legal letters by email in regards to the issue reported by VB here.

It claimed, however, that “it is extremely rare for the council to issue such communication”. One of these letters, it said, was also a reminder that “no meaningful reply had been received to the first”.

Steve Beynon, Isle of Wight council chief executive, told Meeja Law, in a statement, that for “reasons of accuracy and fairness” he believes “the council has an obligation to protect its reputation – and that of individuals associated with it – from baseless and damaging allegations that insinuate corruption”.

“The council has no wish to frustrate free speech however it is my belief – shared by members of the media team who are trained journalists with decades of experience in the industry – that with free speech comes responsibility.

“Just as letters to a newspaper are checked from a legal point of view by a trained editor and ‘live’ calls to a radio phone-in would usually be subject to a delay to prevent inappropriate comments being broadcast, I believe comments left on a website that purports to be a news outlet should also be checked to ensure potentially defamatory material is not published.

“Many current affairs news sites pre-moderate comments with little apparent harm to the principles of free speech.

“I do not think it is the responsibility of the council – and nor does it have the resources – to monitor websites around the clock. As per the above, we believe it is the responsibility of the site editor, hopefully trained in issues such as defamation, to make a sensible decision on what to publish.

“Similarly if a serious problem is identified it is entirely right to register concern through the established legal process rather than via an unknown and uncertain ‘report a comment’ process.”

VB does not think the request for pre-moderation is reasonable. It believes that post-comment moderation is an industry standard. The site told Meeja Law that to change the moderation policy to moderate all comments before they go live on the website “would go against the advice from our media lawyers and the policy that most major publishers also work by”.

Its “‘Report A Comment Button‘ takes less than a minute to use and if completed correctly will be dealt with as soon as practically possible,” VB said.

“This button provides all readers with the ability to report a comment that they believe is either defamatory or offensive. Our policy is to respond to these reports as soon as is practicable, taking down the comment whilst we investigate the validity of the claim.”

“As proved by our actions in the past, we respond swiftly to take-down notices, will continue to work in that way and therefore, will not be changing our moderation policy.”

Although the offending comments have been removed, the council is still demanding that VB actively moderate its site – if it doesn’t the site will lose its media accreditation, it says. In his statement to Meeja Law, council chief executive Steve Beynon said:

“We have not issued any threats to Ventnor Blog but have sought an assurance that they will take steps to reduce the likelihood of further potential defamations by more actively moderating their site.

“Without this reassurance we will reconsider, as is our right, whether we continue to accredit Ventnor Blog as a media outlet with which we are prepared to deal. If an outlet wants to be treated as a genuine news organisation rather than a blog, then we feel it reasonable they adhere to the same principles as all the other news outlets with which we deal.”

VB meanwhile thinks it is unacceptable to bring accreditation issues into the argument:

“To suggest that our media accreditation is at risk should we not comply with [the council's] wishes to change our moderation policy is wholly unacceptable,” it said.

It has asked the council whether it is applying the same conditions to other news organisations that follow a similar moderation policy. It plans to seek advice from the National Union of Journalists in relation to the council’s correspondence.

Ventnor Blog told Meeja Law it is “genuinely grateful when people report the occasional comment that might tip over legal lines – we simply don’t have time to stay on top of the 45,000+ Islander’s comments on VentnorBlog”.

“It’s also reassuring that those at the council are reading every comment on VB – it counters the public view, showing that they are listening to the view of Islanders.

“In what we’re constantly being told are cash-straightened times, it makes sense for the Isle of Wight council to report the very-occasional stray comment in the most economic manner, that isn’t by firing up the costly legal team.

“Tying VentnorBlog’s ‘Media Accreditation’ to moderation of reader’s comments is clearly ridiculous. There is a clear line between the editorial, that is the responsibility of those involved in the publication, and the separate readers’ comments, which are a way for Isle of Wight residents to express and discuss their thoughts and feelings around a subject.”

VB has, however, made a request to readers:

“Having to deal with the ‘you naughty things’ letters from the council’s legal department is a dreadful drag, as well as throwing yours and our taxes down the drain, so please do us a favour and refrain. If you have proof of a claim of corruption, that’s quite a different matter, so please get in touch with us.”

The council, meanwhile, says it will “continue to develop our new media presence through a soon-to-be enhanced website and via ever more popular Twitter and Facebook accounts as well as continuing to provide information to traditional media outlets”.

Meeja Law would be interested to hear from media lawyers, bloggers and journalists with their views on pre and post comment moderation policies, as well as the issues for local authorities making legal claims.