Now to the comparatively marginal matter of reporting courts on Twitter. As my Twitter followers will know, on the first day of the committal hearing in the case against Simon Artz, after Crikey‘s lunchtime deadline, I continued to report events in the Melbourne Magistrates Court via Twitter.
I have done this before, in the Federal Court. Twitter court reporting is fairly common overseas, and there are several incidences in Australia as well.
During the course of yesterday I became aware that The Australian‘s Melbourne bureau chief, Chip Le Grand, was applying to the court for an audio recording of the first day’s hearing.
Later, I heard that in the letter seeking access, The Australian had mentioned my tweeting.
I approached the clerk of court and said that it had been me tweeting, and if His Honour wished to speak to me about it, I was available. The clerk responded that His Honour had not known about the Twitter feed before receiving the letter seeking access to the audio file, and had made it known that he considered tweeting from the court “inappropriate”.
Crikey‘s legal advice on this is that it is essentially at the discretion of the magistrate. There are no rules on it governing Magistrates Courts, though there are these guidelines concerning the Supreme Court.
Under these guidelines, it would apparently be OK to email court reports to multiple recipients, but not to tweet the same material. Tweet reporting has been done from the County Court, and the Federal Court.
This was the background to this page-three story in The Australian today. I dispute the penultimate paragraphs. My tweet reporting was a fair and accurate summary and paraphrase of what occurred in court, which is all journalistic court reports ever are, whatever the medium.
First thing this morning in court, His Honour Peter Mealey raised the matter, said he had been informed that “there is something called Twitter” and said that any tweeting from his court would be regarded as contempt.
He clarified that the reason for the restriction was that in this sensitive case, concerning matters of national security, live reporting could make any necessary suppression orders pointless.
Nicholas Papas, for the prosecution, told Mr Mealey that while he agreed tweeting might become problematic in this case, it had occurred in other courts and in the normal course there was no reason for banning it, any more than other methods of court reporting.
Crikey understands and respects the concerns of the court.
“there is something called Twitter”. *This* is whay we can’t have nice things.
Being serious for a moment, the staggering and fundamental lack of understanding of – let’s face it – how the world actually works should be a genuine concern for the judiciary. I say “should” because the breathtaking antediluvian attitudes may take decades to shift.
Having said that, and while I clearly disagree with His Honour (given he’s operating from a position of ignorance, this puts him at somewhat of a disadvantage), I do agree that training and experience are key when it comes to journalists live-tweeting.
With care, there’s nothing to distinguish this from a hand-written summary of court proceedings (legal) which is then condensed to make a news story.
Well put Sebster.
The same sentence stood out for me too, Sebster.
For a moment there, I thought I was in a remake of Alice in Wonderland.
Reminds me of a famous English saying, popularised by Charles Dickens in Oliver Twist…
http://bit.ly/tQPbv0
Mr Mealy was actually right in banning live-tweeting. Whether it would actually constitute Contempt is arguable…
As he said, live tweeting, or for that matter phone updates to a newsdesk from outside court as proceedings were underway, would render any subsequent suppression orders meaningless. Given the subject matter of this committal, he is perfectly justified in exercising extreme caution.
Mr Mealy is one of the most experienced (and wittiest) Magistrates in Melbourne – I honestly cannot tell from his comment about Twitter whether he really has never heard of it before or he was just exercising his usual sarcasm.
His judgment is exemplified by refusing the suppression order applied for the other day; it was embarrassing to the AFP and the Australian, but “National security” concerns were, in his opinion, not strong enough to justify suppressing the affidavit of Mr Negus.
Magistrates Court proceedings are open to the public unless declared Closed (such as in certain sex offence cases), and the press, like everyone else, are free to sit and take notes in any way they see fit.
In matters such as this, where there may be suppression orders applied for after evidence has been given, it is a generally unspoken rule that the media will apply for permission to copy or report on certain pieces of evidence at the end, and will hold off reporting until it is deemed that such permission may be necessary.
The whole twitter subject does raise some incongruities in the rules of the Magistrates’ Court – mobile phones must be switched off (as per Chief Magistrate’s Instructions), yet lawyers and prosecutors routinely use iPads and laptops (many with 3G connection) at the bar table and in the gallery for taking notes and checking legislation and case law. Smartphones generally hold diaries as well, so are used in court to check availability for adjournments and so on.
Recording of proceedings is prohibited, yet every phone and tablet has a voice recorder, so how is this to be policed? And really, what is the difference between a digital recording and a page of handwritten or typed notes? What is the difference between a Court Artist’s sketch and a photograph?
This case appears to be as much about News Ltd’s many-fronted battles, and media both new and old, as it is about the alleged leaking of confidential information by a policeman. Whether Simon Artz is committed to stand trial or not may end up being a footnote.
Loving your reporting on this, Margaret.
J & J.