Magistrate Michael Holmes has said that people who write about court hearings on Facebook need to be aware that some comments could amount to contempt of court.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
He was speaking at the conclusion of a hearing in Glen Innes Local Court where he threw out an application for an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) from a wife against her estranged husband.
Solicitor Chris Leahy had suggested Facebook posts about the matter might be contempt of court, which is a criminal offence that can result in a jail sentence.
More stories:
Mr Holmes said he had not seen the Facebook posts, but he made remarks about the way applications for an AVO are covered.
“People must be very careful about reporting matters on Facebook without having the full facts,” he said.
If there were contempt, the magistrate wondered if it was a matter for his court or the Supreme Court.
“The general rule is that they don’t get published,” he said.
On the suggestion that posts on Facebook had been in contempt, Mr Holmes said it was concerning.
“These matters are quasi-civil in nature. It’s not an opportunity to take a swipe at people,” Mr Holmes said.
Contempt of court includes offences which interfere with the judicial process, such as making public certain information or allegations about an accused, when a case is before the court, as well as intimidating witnesses or disruptive behaviour in the courtroom.
While Mr Holmes made it clear that Facebook users were subject to contempt of court law, one Facebook user who had made comments about the AVO matter was in court and he claimed afterwards that his online comments had not been in contempt.
The policy of the Glen Innes Examiner is not to cover applications for AVOs, unless they become criminal matters, which includes a breach of an AVO or assault charges.
