Rule against discussion of ongoing trials

ohnonotgmail · 16-10-2022 10:53pm #1

Can a mod or admin explain to me the reasoning behind this rule?

Spear · 17-10-2022 12:02am

Because public discussion of a trail that's still sub judice can constitute contempt of court in Ireland. Vague and outdated laws mean there's not much option otherwise, and boards.ie isn't going to pay the cost of a supreme court case.

Beasty · 17-10-2022 12:09am

From the Site Terms of Use users agree not to:

"post Material in respect of any matter that is currently before the courts"

ohnonotgmail · 17-10-2022 12:12am

You are aware that the case I am referring to is in the non-jury Special Criminal Court?

ohnonotgmail · 17-10-2022 12:13am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119754254#Comment_119754254

I asked for the reason behind the rule not just to have it quoted at me.

Beasty · 17-10-2022 12:14am

Rule is there in the site Terms of Use

Mods and Admins have no discretion. Once someone reports it we have to act

ohnonotgmail · 17-10-2022 12:15am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119754270#Comment_119754270

Again you haven't answered the question asked.

Beasty · 17-10-2022 12:17am

I am not a lawyer. I have no input into the site's Terms of Use. I do have an obligation to apply them though

17-10-2022 1:21am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119754270#Comment_119754270

Interesting.

@Beasty, may I ask, did someone report the recently closed thread in CA in relation to a case of contempt of court, and cite this rule, or are you unable to say?

Beasty · 17-10-2022 10:20pm

There have been a number of such threads closed recently; almost all following reported posts

We had a discussion (in Feedback or Help Desk) some time ago (quite a while before the migration) about discussing cases in the aftermath of the Belfast Rugby player rape trial. It was generally accepted that jury trials were definitely an issue and could not be discussed at all, certainly in the context of Ireland but also UK trials that could have an Irish angle, or simply be a case of us having a lot of users based in the UK (including of course NI). Further afield was less of a concern

I did though revisit this site's ToU in the context of a thread in another forum (that I had to close) and it was clear that the ToUs prohibited discussion of anything before the courts. Now I do think there remains some question over non Irish-and non-UK trials but the ToUs do not differentiate

In this case I had to deal with another poster in the thread who had possibly broken a rule about scandalising the court. In looking at that it was clear that the only thing keeping the thread going was the various court proceedings and I closed it based on that (and you will see my closing note did accept it should probably had been closed previously)

xxxxxxl · 19-10-2022 1:41am

Can I ask why and I'm recalling here cases before the UK courts were closed

Jim2007 · 19-10-2022 2:07am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119754260#Comment_119754260

Are you aware that you can still be held in contempt of court? Nobody here is going to risk the costs of legal proceedings, just to let you express an opinion. That’s why it a blanket rule.

ohnonotgmail · 19-10-2022 8:37am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119763431#Comment_119763431

You can be held in contempt if you intentionally prejudice a criminal trial. The High Court has held that a non-jury trial is extremely difficult to prejudice because it is assumed a judge will nor be swayed by outside influences. But thanks for repeating what Beasty already said.

Dial Hard · 19-10-2022 9:00am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119758314#Comment_119758314

Surely the Terms of Use can be updated, though??? Presumably they didn't come down from Mount Sinai inscribed by the finger of God himself, like.

Spear · 19-10-2022 9:38am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119763745#Comment_119763745

Of course they can change, and they've done so many times. And there's been some weird crap in there in the past, including a prohibition on promoting trepanation that was added back at the dawn of time.

HeidiHeidi · 19-10-2022 9:40am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119763904#Comment_119763904

Well, that's my new word for the day today!

Jim2007 · 19-10-2022 10:28am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119763661#Comment_119763661

So how many different ways do you need to be told - We are not going to expose ourselves to that kind of potential risk for the sake of your opinion. You are always free to go set up your own site and publish whatever you want there.

ohnonotgmail · 19-10-2022 12:29pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119764132#Comment_119764132

Beasty already told me. Your response is superfluous.

26-10-2022 3:54am

I can see the logic in the rule...

The Darrell Brooks case in the US was nearly de-railed today - due to comments that we left on a sub-reddit by someone (claiming to be a juror). The reddit has since been deleted.

Spear · 26-10-2022 12:09pm

Just so people don't think this is overly paranoid, the High Court served Magill Magazine with an injunction preventing them from publishing an interview as the case it referred was under appeal. They did eventually overturn the injunction, but had to go to the supreme court to do so. And that was back in 1983, with a pre-checked interview in printed press. Such outdated and clunky laws are even more risky for something as instantaneous and open to abuse as the internet.

You can read much more about that here: https://thedublinreview.com/article/a-brush-with-the-law/

ohnonotgmail · 26-10-2022 12:20pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119794909#Comment_119794909

The supreme court decided that comments about a case in a non-jury court would not intentionally prejudice it and therefore would not break the sub judice rule. I'm not sure why you think that backs up the site rule.

Furze99 · 26-10-2022 12:27pm

One of the implications of the policy though is to potentially further stifle public debate. Particularly where certain people & parties do not care for certain issues being aired in public and take cases against media etc.

On a sort of related matter, can we discuss the content of Shane Ross's recent book on Mary Lou here?

blanch152 · 26-10-2022 5:32pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119794955#Comment_119794955

Correct, the Supreme Court ruling actually backs up the idea that non-jury cases can be commented about on places like that. Unless boards.ie believes it has a significant number of high court judges as members, there should no rule stopping discussion of non-jury court cases on boards like this.

Furthermore, there is a secondary argument in such cases, that if you do wish to censor discussion of court cases, the only times it is necessary is during the actual court action, that commentary before the case is actually in the court is non-prejudicial.

Finally, how do we get a discussion going on changing the Terms of Use to reflect this discussion?

Beasty · 26-10-2022 5:49pm

Ultimately it's down to Odhran. I would imagine he might want to take legal advice, or indeed simply say no and not go to that expense. I presume he already took legal advice about T&Cs when he took over

There is another rule about not posting material that could be seen as "scandalising the courts". That is arguably more onerous as I would see it as questioning whether posters can criticise judges for decisions they make (including sentencing).

ohnonotgmail · 26-10-2022 6:57pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119796527#Comment_119796527

Scandalising the court is a much higher bar than simply criticising a judge.

martingriff · 26-10-2022 10:52pm

The problem is the initial cost of taking a case especially from sites like boards on these issues and its cheaper and safer not to do it and I completely understand and support them as it could be extremely costly.

Now if they win all expenses maybe paid by the other side but to get there cost it's own money and time you can not get back and make you lose more then you may gain

Beasty · 27-10-2022 7:06pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119796757#Comment_119796757

Do you think this is something I should be making judgement calls on?

ohnonotgmail · 27-10-2022 8:52pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119801405#Comment_119801405

You've made your feelings well known Beasty.

Beasty · 27-10-2022 11:38pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119801824#Comment_119801824

But the point is something like that has to be considered/assessed by someone who is probably not a legal expert (ie a mod or indeed a Site Admin or an employee). And as already pointed out above legal advice costs money. Not only does it cost money, but there is no guarantee that any such advice would be followed if a legal challenge is made. And I know from personal experience that any advice would be caveated as no two circumstances are likely to be identical. Hence introducing any subjectivity from a modding perspective would give no guarantee against challenge. So why would a site like this want to expose itself to the risk?

And to be clear there this site by it's very nature exposes itself to legal risk. However by taking legal advice when drawing up the terms and conditions then any successful legal challenge will probably only bring the site down. Not taking legal advice and not putting in place appropriate terms can lead to a personal exposure to any directors.

Rule against discussion of ongoing trials

Comments