Closing threads because there's a case before the courts

Dial Hard

Is this a policy now? And if so, why? I get that Boards has to protect itself but a blanket ban on discussion of any topic that's the subject of legal proceedings seems ridiculously excessive, imo.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057878886

Ken.

On my phone so can't do links. Look up 'online discussion collapses trial'. That's the reason. I think it was the journal or politics.ie got heat for that not us.

We do run this stuff by the boards legal folks before closing.

Boards.ie: Niamh

It's not a new policy. When a case is before the courts or about to be we should not facilitate discussion on it. Discussion will inevitably lead to the guilt (or not) of the accused and it may be seen to influence a jury should they read the discussion.

It may seem ridiculously excessive but the reality is we have been contacted by the DPP on occasion with regard to certain threads. It is a real concern. In the thread you have linked to, a man has now been charged in relation to the crime. The policy is to close discussion when a case is sub judice. That's not to say it cannot be reopened or a new thread started once a case has concluded.

Dial Hard

Boards.ie: Niamh wrote: »

It's not a new policy. When a case is before the courts or about to be we should not facilitate discussion on it.

Shouldn't it at least be applied consistently, then? The Frederick St. occupation case is the subject of a High Court order but that thread remains open. Same with the 8th referendum exit poll thread while the various appeals were before the courts.

.......

Is it only when a jury is involved?

I dont see the rationale myself.

Odelay

....... wrote: »

Is it only when a jury is involved?

I dont see the rationale myself.

It would seem to be only when a jury is involved.

I can see the rational, makes sense.

.......

Odelay wrote: »

It would seem to be only when a jury is involved.

I can see the rational, makes sence.

It would make sense if it was consistent among irish web sites. But boards.ie censoring discussion just means people discuss it on other sites.

Boards.ie: Niamh

Dial Hard wrote: »

Shouldn't it at least be applied consistently, then? The Frederick St. occupation case is the subject of a High Court order but that thread remains open. Same with the 8th referendum exit poll thread while the various appeals were before the courts.

Being subject to a High Court order is a different issue to a named individual being charged with a crime.

Dial Hard

Odelay wrote: »

It would seem to be only when a jury is involved.

I can see the rational, makes sense.

The Bray shooting case will most likely be heard in the Special Criminal Court, which is non-jury, so this argument doesn't hold.

Dial Hard

Boards.ie: Niamh wrote: »

Being subject to a High Court order is a different issue to a named individual being charged with a crime.

You didn't say that was the criteria, though, you simply said that "When a case is before the courts or about to be we should not facilitate discussion on it" and "The policy is to close discussion when a case is sub judice."

Sorry, but it's this very lack of consistency that makes this so annoying. If it's completely arbitrary, which it appears to be, then at least do your members the courtesy of saying so.

Odelay

Dial Hard wrote: »

The Bray shooting case will most likely be heard in the Special Criminal Court, which is non-jury, so this argument doesn't hold.

Do you know this for certain?

Cookie_Monster

That thread was also locked while there was still fresh/updated stories appearing on news sites...

hullaballoo

I'll attempt to explain the policy and why it's in place.

The press have (or ought to have) particular training with regard to what can and cannot be published on a matter that is sub judice. They are allowed to publish a fair and accurate report of court proceedings. However, sometimes even they go too far and have been directly responsible for the collapse of a number of high profile cases in the state.

The boards policy is not arbitrarily or inconsistently enforced. It is uniformly applied inasmuch as possible. However, there is scope for the policy to be relaxed slightly in relation to some cases based on the risk of prejudice to the fair hearing of the matter and the risk of comments or speculation drifting into the realm of contempt of court.

In very general terms, civil cases are not subject to the same level of risk under those heads so I have never suggested that these discussions should be closed or even closely monitored. That's a pragmatic approach to balance the site's main objective of being a place for discussion against the strict legal approach that any matter before the courts is sub judice.

That's the difference between the Bray shooting thread and the Frederick Street eviction thread. If anyone is brought before the courts on a criminal charge for the latter, it will be subject to the same bar as the former.

As pointed out in the first reply and again by Niamh above, there is a very real risk that online discussion will collapse a trial. So long as I have any connection with this site, it will not be responsible for such a collapsed trial. The fact that other sites allow discussion that carries the risk of collapsing a trial is really neither here nor there. On their heads be it but I'll not have it on mine thanks.

I hope this clarifies the position.