Legality of campaigning for ongoing trial

Beanybabog

There's currently a criminal case making its way through the courts, which we are not allowed discuss on boards as it's an ongoing case, so I won't name it or mention the subject matter of it, however I hope I can ask this question.

There's is an organisation campaigning for a not guilty verdict- sharing posts on social media, released a documentary and sponsoring ads. Is this not interference in the administration of justice. I know someone who saw an ad (not a post by a contact) on a social media account- presumably the jury could, through no fault of their own, come across this propaganda, for want of a better word? What are the legal restrictions on the media- or indeed are there any- in respect of bias / campaigning to influence a verdict?

nhunter100

Beanybabog wrote:

There's is an organisation campaigning for a not guilty verdict- sharing posts on social media, released a documentary and sponsoring ads. Is this not interference in the administration of justice. I know someone who saw an ad (not a post by a contact) on a social media account- presumably the jury could, through no fault of their own, come across this propaganda, for want of a better word? What are the legal restrictions on the media- or indeed are there any- in respect of bias / campaigning to influence a verdict?

Don't see the issue, isn't there a lad in prison in Egypt and there's a campaign to free him also even, as far as to try and have government exert political pressure to secure his release.

Samuel T. Cogley

It's a tough one as they are simply saying an innocent man is innocent I feel it would be different if they were trying to influence a guilty verdict. Legally though I have no idea I'm sure someone will enlighten us.

ED E

If a Juror sees anything they are meant to self report according to a recent case reported by RTE. So if its everywhere then the chances of a mistrial seem high.

nhunter100

ED E wrote:

If a Juror sees anything they are meant to self report according to a recent case reported by RTE. So if its everywhere then the chances of a mistrial seem high.

Unless the jurors in this case have been flown in from the far side of the world or were in a coma since 2014 they will know a lot of the back ground of the case the OP is referring to.

GM228

ED E wrote: »

If a Juror sees anything they are meant to self report according to a recent case reported by RTE. So if its everywhere then the chances of a mistrial seem high.

Probably not.

Two important cases dealing with such issues, one being the D vs DPP [1994] 2 IR 465 case and of course the famous "X" case rape trial - Z vs DPP [1994] 2 IR 476.

In the D case the Supreme Court when overturning a High Court order preventing a retrial recognised the importance of the right to a fair trial and accepted that a juror might well remember the media coverage of a previous trial or issues surrounding the case and feel sympathy towards the victim, but that the accused could simply not establish that there was a real risk that the jury would be prevented from returning an impartial verdict based on the media coverage, basically the court concluded that to hold otherwise, would imply that the jury would ignore their oath to try the case on the evidence adduced and to ignore extraneous evidence.

In the Z case Mr Z sought to have his trial prohibited on the basis that the pre-trial publicity would mean that it was highly probable that the jurors would be pre-disposed to convict him. This argument was rejected on the ground that the trial judge would be able to deal with the publicity surrounding the trial by directing the jury that the controversy and publicity surrounding the case was completely irrelevant to the trial and should be completely disregarded.

Another thing to consider is the constitutioal right to express "convictions and opinions" and the ECHR right to "hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority" and how that holds for the likes of advocating a guilty/not guilty verdict.

Beanybabog

Thanks for the replies. I personally found the social media aspect distasteful but then I realised, if our media were in fact biased, our courts were politically motivated and the separation of powers didn't exist, we would rely on rogue journalists to highlight the situation. I don't believe this to be the case but the people standing up for it clearly do. On the other hand , this particular organisation has slated victims of the alleged crime, accused them of lying, accused the media of bias, and painted (imo) a very biased picture of the circumstances

Samuel T. Cogley

Beanybabog wrote: »

Thanks for the replies. I personally found the social media aspect distasteful but then I realised, if our media were in fact biased, our courts were politically motivated and the separation of powers didn't exist, we would rely on rogue journalists to highlight the situation. I don't believe this to be the case but the people standing up for it clearly do. On the other hand , this particular organisation has slated victims of the alleged crime, accused them of lying, accused the media of bias, and painted (imo) a very biased picture of the circumstances

Assuming a guilty verdict one would hope for a few defamation cases from the victims. There is a form or redress.