125 / 164
125
guilty. This means that it is expected that the judge and jury will be
impartial, that both sides of the case will be heard and that all the
evidence will be considered without the risk of prejudice towards
the person on trial. This principle must be upheld in all cases,
regardless of how ‘open or shut’ we believe a matter to be.
Social media has the ability to greatly impact the accused’s right
to a fair trial. If a member of the jury has seen hate groups on
Facebook, read articles on the internet, or anything that incriminates
the accused, the juror could – and is likely to be – influenced by this
information. This could lead to the juror being biased as they may
have already formed a view of the accused’s guilt before having heard
the case. If the defence argues that it is impossible for the accused to
be given a fair trial due to the vast amount of prejudicial information
available to the public then the trial could be postponed or could
even lead to a mistrial. This was a serious possibility in the trial of
Adrian Ernest Bailey – the man charged and eventually jailed for
those unspeakable crimes against Jill Meagher.
Many of you may have heard of the phrase ‘trial by media’ which
is used to describe the impact of television and newspaper coverage
on a person’s reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt
or innocence before, or after, a verdict in a court of law. Now that
technology has progressed the new phrase that is often heard is ‘trial
by
social media
.’ In the information age, everyone is given a voice on
the issue. But regardless of how guilty a person may seem, they
deserve to have their case determined in court, not by you or me or
Harry from Craigieburn or Sharon from Ivanhoe. Although I have
heard that Sharon is quite an astute judge!
Traditional media outlets, such as newspapers, are restricted in
what they can publish, however, some social media users play by
different rules. The problem is that so many of us, would never even
turn our minds to the fact that what we write online has the ability
to corrupt the legal process.
When they arrested the accused, Ernest Bayley, Jill Meagher’s
name was published on Facebook and twitter once every 11 seconds.
Jill’s name appeared in more than 35 million Twitter feeds. People
were so outraged by this incident that pages suggesting that the
accused should be lynched were created. On Facebook a hate group
against the accused had already attracted almost 18,000 ‘likes’ before
the trial began. Even though most people would have subscribed to
Social Media
Should Not
Be Allowed
To Interfere
With The
Administration
Of Justice
12