High Court Judge makes new Social Media Law (re: Breach of CourtInjunctions)

Less than two weeks after the Hon. Mr Justice Tugendhat delivered judgment on the McAlpine v Bercow Twitter libel affair (see here and here), the UK's top media and libel judge has made new law and sent out another clear message to social media users.

Namely: the internet may have made everyone a  publisher, however the internet did not made publishing responsibility free. Therefore, don't say anything on social media you wouldn't say on a print newspaper.

This time round the message from the legal mill is a little more social media-user friendly. OK, to understand things we need to go back to here on Defero Law. In that post entitled, "Is Social Media Uncontrollable?" I talked about two men who posted images of the two men who killed Jamie Bulger. This was in breach of a court order; therefore there was a legal effect to their actions (see Social Media and the Law: Know Where You Stand, my blog on the Huffington Post).


The two men were originally convicted and handed down prison terms. Now this has changed. See tweets bellow from Adam Wagner.

TWITTER, READ THIS JUDGMENT! 2 men who shared Jamie Bulger killer pics get 9 month sentences suspended for 15 months bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/…
— Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) June 4, 2013

… Court says in future serious social media injunction breaches, unlikely jail sentences will be suspended. TAKE NOTE bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/…
— Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) June 4, 2013

Full judgement available below in tweet from the Judicial Office:

High Court judgment in HM Attorney General v Harkins & Liddle (breach of Venables/Thompson injunction) now available bit.ly/13CrlZj
— Judicial Office (@JudiciaryUK) June 4, 2013

This is another important step on the road to hammering out the law that governs activity on the social web. Just this time the judge has made new law that makes it clear what will happen if you publish comments online that breach a court order. And as Adam Wagner rightly said: "TAKE NOTE!"

Lessons from McAlpine v Bercow

Presiding over the High Court Mr Justice Tugendhat found that Sally Bercow had libelled Lord McAlpine by publishing on Twitter defamatory, albeit "nuanced", communications. Full judgement can be read here. Bad for law firm Carter-Ruck who had been instructed by Bercow. In his summation, the UK's senior libel judge Judge Tugendhat said:

“I find that the Tweet meant, in its natural and ordinary defamatory meaning, that the Claimant was a paedophile who was guilty of sexually abusing boys living in care. 

If I were wrong about that, I would find that the Tweet bore an innuendo meaning to the same effect.”

Judge Tugendhat Sends Out Social Media Warning and Advice

From the Spectator quoting Lord McAlpine's solicitor here:

"In the meantime, vindicated Lord McAlpine’s solicitor sounds a clear and concise note: ‘Mr Tugendhat’s judgment is one of great public interest and provides a warning to, and guidance for, people who use social media."

The Story of the Defamation Act in Northern Ireland (so far...)

The Press Gazette and other publishers recently suggested that the unilateral Sammy Wilson decision not to pass a 'legislative consent motion", which would have implemented in full the Defamation Act into Northern Ireland law, could hurt the devolved province. Lord Lester, the Liberal Democrat architect of the new libel law said the decision was a "very bad step" for the public.