This has to be welcomed by everyone involved in the alternative media. Ignorance of the law is not and has never been a defense before the law but Dominic Grieve QC, the attorney general, has mitigated against possible claims that there was not a level playing field, with the mainstream media having access to privileged legal advice which the rest of us did not have.
There can be no excuses from this point onward.
The publication of these advisories will not address the problems that are caused by ‘Super Injunctions’ (SI). These SIs are anomalies within the law. The media are informed that an individual has been granted an SI but are unable to report that there even is an SI for fear of being in contempt of court. Yet theoretically, I, ignorant that there is an SI, could be in contempt if I publish allegations that are the subject of the SI.
It’s a legal mess and it can’t easily be addressed as the problem is the very nature of super injunctions.
The advisories will be published on the Attorney General’s Office website – Here
…and also through the twitter Attorney General’s Office feed – Here
Background:
- The Attorney General has issued ten media advisories so far this year, the most ever issued by the Attorney General’s Office.
- On average, he issues around five advisories a year.
- Advisories have previously been issued around cases such as: the murder of Tia Sharp, Sgt Danny Nightingale’s Court Martial and the arrest of Christopher Jefferies.
“Blogs and social media sites like Twitter and Facebook mean that individuals can now reach thousands of people with a single tweet or post. This is an exciting prospect, but it can pose certain challenges to the criminal justice system.
In days gone by, it was only the mainstream media that had the opportunity to bring information relating to a court case to such a large group of people that it could put a court case at risk. That is no longer the case, and is why I have decided to publish the advisories that I have previously only issued to the media.
This is not about telling people what they can or cannot talk about on social media; quite the opposite in fact, it’s designed to help facilitate commentary in a lawful way. I hope that by making this information available to the public at large, we can help stop people from inadvertently breaking the law, and make sure that cases are tried on the evidence, not what people have found online.
This change also brings more openness to Government’s dealings with the media so that both sides can be accountable to the public for what they do and say.”
theneedleblog 
Reblogged this on justiceforkevinandjenveybaylis.
well the government/murdoch have made the coulson/brooks `story` very hard to avoid have n`t they?
Do you think if another newspapers executives would have been in the dock that murdoch would have given them mercy? Do you think there would have been a news blackout?
Do you not think murdoch would not have been moaning that the trial is going to last 6 months? plus moaning about costs to the taxpayer? etc etc etc.
Is should be on the judge to tell the jury panel at the start of the trial that the case must be tried impartially, and only the evidence that those jurors are going to hear in this courtroom is allowed and nothing else. Plus, they should not go away and research the case whilst the trial is in progress.
Why should everybody else who comments whilst the case is going on be liable?
Sometimes a ‘story’ is very difficult to avoid.
But I think you’ve made an interesting point.