An examination of social media's impact on the courts in Australia

In 2011, Joanne Fraill, a juror, was imprisoned for eight months because she chatted on Facebook with a co-accused from the trial that she participated in.1 Fraill’s case prompts questions about how social media affect courts, legal regulators and lawyers, as well as important legal principles. Those important legal principles are: (1) public confidence in the judiciary and the courts; (2) public confidence in the legal profession; (3) open justice; and (4) the right of an accused to a fair trial. This thesis offers an analysis and conclusions on those issues. It examines case law, legislation, academic articles and internet materials on social media. It is found that some Australian courts and legal regulators would benefit from doing more to adapt their procedures and rules to social media. The extent to which Australian courts and legal regulators adapt their procedures and rules to social media can have significant repercussions on the important legal principles considered. This thesis provides Australian courts, the judiciary, legal regulators and lawyers with information and recommendations about their social media use that may assist them. The author believes that this is the first scholarly work to consider the impact that social media has had upon all of these stakeholders, and the first scholarly work in this area to recommend appropriate actions to maintain or possibly increase confidence in the judiciary, the courts and the legal profession, improve open justice and ensure that accused receive fair trials, despite the possibility that jurors may use social media inappropriately

An Opportunity Lost: The United Kingdom\u27s Failed Reform of Defamation Law

The Defamation Act 1996 is the first major piece of libel legislation in Britain since the Defamation Act 1952. The British Parliament passed the Act in response to the ease with which libel plaintiffs can establish liability and in response to huge damage awards. In passing the Act, Parliament attempted to shift the balance of defamation law away from protecting the reputational interest of plaintiffs and toward protecting free discussion and open criticism. However, the Act merely fine-tunes current law. The Act reduces the limitations period for defamation suits, introduces procedural reforms to simplify and reduce libel suits and permits Members of Parliament to waive their Parliamentary privilege if necessary to bring their own defamation claims. Yet the Act fails to adequately reform English law to provide greater freedom of speech protection. For example, unlike other jurisdictions, English law does not recognize some form of public figure defense. By failing to substantively reduce the ease of defamation suits, Parliament lost the opportunity to provide greater protection of speech

Open justice, transparency and the media: representing the public interest in the physical and virtual courtroom

In 2012, Lord Justice Toulson observed that the practical application of open justice ‘may need reconsideration from time to time to take account of changes in the way society and the courts work’. In this article, we undertake such a reconsideration in light of the declining role that institutional media organisations play in promoting and protecting the principle of open justice, focusing on courts in England and Australia. We argue that due to changes in the communications landscape, the media no longer have the resources or sufficient inclination to adequately safeguard the public interest in transparency in the courts. In order to place the media’s declining role into context, we also briefly explore three further categories of contemporary challenges facing the open justice principle: changes to judicial attitudes to open justice in response to new communication technologies; shifts in the priority given in law to competing interests in national security and privacy; and, finally, new and emerging changes to court processes and procedures that potentially limit open justice, including virtual courts. We then consider mechanisms that would offer enhanced protection of open justice. Most boldly, we examine a novel model in which an open justice advocate (OJA) intervenes in appropriate circumstances, with the overall objective of ensuring maximum transparency of court proceedings. We also suggest additional mechanisms for greater transparency and accountability regarding the state of open justice in the courts – namely, a statutory duty on courts to give written public reasons for all decisions regarding open justice, a public register of all reporting restrictions (and similar orders) granted by the courts, and annual open justice reporting requirements

Algorithmic Decision Making: Can Artificial Intelligence and the Metaverse Provide Technological Solutions to Modernise the United Kingdom’s Legal Services and Criminal Justice?

Artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) have had a profound impact on various sectors including Banking (Fin Tech), Health (HealthTech) and Charitable Fundraising (Charity Tech). The ‘natural’ ability of an AI system to independently perform and, often, outthink its human-counter parts by developing ‘intelligence’(simulating human intelligence) through its own experiences and processing deep layers of information i.e., complex representations of data, and learn has resulted in astounding improvements in the completion of tasks that are complex and technical, time-consuming.AI, with the ease of working with the most granular level of detail, can identify people and objects, recognise voices, uncover patterns and, in advance, screen for problems. Yet, RegTech (or LawTech/LegalTech) has not seen the same level of advancement. AI can provide solutions and enormous economic, political, and social benefits – in terms of public service administration. The purpose of this article is to explore advents in AI (ML and DL) and whether the criminal justice system, in the United Kingdom (UK), which is heavily overburdened, could benefit from some of the advances that have taken place in other sectors and jurisdictions, and whether automation and algorithmic decision making could be used to modernise it. This research draws on domestic and international published law, regulation, and literature, and isset out in six parts, the first partre views the position of the criminal justice system i.e., issues, part two then looks at relative technological advancements in AI, and the Metaverse. Part three explores current advents in AI relating to RegTech (LawTech/LegalTech) and how, if at all, the CJS can use this technology. Part four explores what aspects of the U.K.’s CJS would be fit for automation. Part five focuses on those matters pertaining to AI that pose problems in relation to matters in part 4 i.e., AI discrimination and bias, and explores safeguarding and mitigation including the requirement for explanation as set out in the GDPR. Part six concludes the discussion with some recommendations, as at, January 2024. It is suggested that AI and algorithmic decision making, with the correct legal framework and safeguards in place, could assist in modernising the CJS focussed legal functions, services in law firms, innovating for the next decade. This work is original and timely given the increased debate relating to how AI can assist in modernising the U.K.’s CJS, the global criminal justice challenges, solutions, and what, if any, role the Metaverse can play

The BJTC Media Law, Regulation & Ethics Handbook 2021

eBook providing an up-to-date and detailed guide to the media law, media regulation and professional ethics for journalists in the United Kingdom. Suitable for professionals working in media production, trainee journalists, undergraduate and postgraduate students enrolled on journalism module and programmes. The content contains many hundreds of direct links to case histories and online resources and also includes chapters contextualising key media law themes such as Open Justice, Media Law and Racial Justice and the media law of the USA

Justice wide open: working papers

These working papers mark the launch of the Centre of Law, Justice and Journalism’s new initiative, "Open Justice in the Digital Era", which aims to make recommendations for the way judicial information and legal data are communicated in the 21st century

‘Justice system data’: a comparative study

A report examining how Canada, Australia and Ireland manage the data and information that is generated by their justice system