Browse > Home / Legal, Social media and blogging / Blog article: Judge bans use of Twitter in Raoul Moat accomplices case

Judge bans use of Twitter in Raoul Moat accomplices case

March 18th, 2011Posted by in Legal, Social media and blogging

A judge in the case of two men jailed for life this week for helping gunman Raoul Moat reportedly ruled that Twitter could not be used in court.

The Press Gazette and HoldtheFrontPage are reporting that journalists at ncjMedia Ltd, publishers of Newcastle dailies the Evening Chronicle and The Journal, asked to tweet live updates on the trial and verdicts but had their application rejected.

According to HoldtheFrontPage, the judge in the case, Mr Justice McCombe, refused the application because he believed that the interests of justice would be best served by the production of full, balanced reports.

In December, Britain’s most senior judge issued interim guidance stating journalists could use Twitter in court but that approval must be issued by a judge on a case-by-case basis.

The week before the the Lord Chief Justice issued the guidance, the district judge overseeing the second bail hearing of WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange gave journalists and others explicit permission to tweet the proceedings.

The Lord Chief Justice is due to carry out a consultation on the use of Twitter in court reporting shortly.

The headline to this post originally read: Judge bans Twitter despite Lord Chief Justice’s guidance

 

 

 

 

Similar posts:

  • http://brennigjones.com/blog Brennig

    This is confusing. By stating that he believed ‘that the interests of justice would be best served by the production of full, balanced reports’ Mr Justice McCombe seems to be saying that justice is decided upon and delivered outside of the courtroom.

    This significant point aside, surely, using the traditional reporting model, anyone can report a case in any skewed way they care (looking at you Daily Mail)?

  • Pingback: 140Char » 140Char Links 03/21/2011

© Mousetrap Media Ltd. Theme: modified version of Statement