Wrongful Transmission of Distanced Hearing
In a defamation case, the solicitors representing one party had live streamed a video of a defamation trial to several individuals outside the jurisdiction without the Court’s permission. The trial took place during the Coronavirus pandemic, and conducted at a distance. There had been discussions between the judge and solicitors in advance about the conditions and restrictions for remote access.
Held: ‘The judge’s Order (and his Reasons) could not have been clearer. The solicitors ought to have supplied copies of it to their clients, or at least to have explained its effect so as to avoid any possibility of a misunderstanding arising in the future. We would also have expected the solicitors to provide a copy of the Order to the transcribers, so that the transcribers could be in no doubt either as to what it was they were, or were not, permitted to do. Neither of these things happened.’ The proceedings were recorded and transmitted via Zoom, the link to the broadcast having been given out to some individuals and then passed on by them.
The solicitors having referred themselves to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority the Court noted the seriousness of the breaches in this case.
‘Once live streaming or any other form of live transmission takes place, however, the Court’s ability to maintain control is substantially diminished, in particular where information is disseminated outside the jurisdiction, as happened in this case. The opportunity for misuse (via social media for example) is correspondingly enhanced, with the risk that public trust and confidence in the judiciary and in the justice system will be undermined. In these circumstances, it is critical that those who have the conduct of proceedings should understand the legal framework within which those proceedings are conducted, and that the Court is able to trust legal representatives to take the necessary steps to ensure that the orders made by the Courts are obeyed.’
Dame Victoria Sharp P
[2020] EWHC 2167 (QB), [2020] WLR(D) 464, [2020] 4 WLR 122
Bailii, WLRD
Contempt of Court Act 1981 9, Criminal Justice Act 1925 41
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Spurrier, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport Admn 2019
Live streaming of video and audio from a court room is prohibited. . .
Cited – Hamid, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 30-Oct-2012
Sir John Thomas P said: ‘The court . . intends to take the most vigorous action against any legal representatives who fail to comply with its rules. If people persist in failing to follow the procedural requirements, they must realise that this . .
Cited – Sathivel, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 26-Apr-2018
The court dealt with a complaint as to a solicitor’s alleged failings to meet professional and ethical standards required of those conducting proceedings on behalf of clients in immigration and asylum cases. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Professions, Contempt of Court
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.653078