Public risking fines and jail if found to ‘prejudice’ Donaldson court case

AN expert in media law has warned that people posting material online or shouting defamatory comments in the street in relation to the Jeffrey Donaldson court case risk receiving a hefty fine or jail term.

It’s understood police have received a number of reports relating to posts online and are examining the content to determine if any offences have been committed.

Donaldson (61) faces 11 charges, including one of rape, one of committing an act of gross indecency and nine of indecent assault on dates between 1985 and 2006.

His wife, Eleanor, also appeared at Newry Courthouse this week charged with aiding and abetting rape and indecent assault, as well as two counts of cruelty to a person under the age of 16.

Dr Colm Murphy, a senior lecturer in journalism at Ulster University and the course director of its MA in journalism, lectures in media law and regulation.

He explained that the two Donaldson cases are ‘active’, so the public and media need to ensure that nothing is published that would create a substantial risk of serious prejudice to either cases under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and related legislation.

“Firstly, nothing can be published that could influence a potential juror either in favour or against the two accused,” he told the Belfast Telegraph.

“It would also include any detail about evidence that might or might not come before a potential jury, as it is not yet agreed if a trial goes ahead what evidence will be presented.”

Both the public and the media need to be very careful about what they publish or post online.

“The most dangerous time is when a jury is sitting. But before the court case goes in front of a jury, the court service normally does an online trawl and can get a court order to get prejudicial material temporarily disabled,” Dr Murphy said.

“There is also the ‘fade factor’ as, given the backlog of Crown Court cases in Northern Ireland, it might be a few years before cases come to trial.

“So, at selection stage, a juror will be asked about the detail they know about a case — and if they have very specific knowledge, they may be not chosen. They are also given direction from a judge to ignore what they have read or heard, which also helps to ensure a fair trial.

“The main social media companies would also be monitoring their networks to try to ensure that prejudicial material is not posted, particularly in high-profile cases. If it does get posted and it is pointed out to them, they must remove it ‘expeditiously’ otherwise the companies can become liable for contempt of court.

“If you publish something that is contempt of court, there is a fine with unlimited cap and/ or a prison sentence. If you collapse a trial through serious misconduct, then you can be liable to pay the cost of the trial up to that point.”

Dr Murphy said “one of the most serious issues” to look out for is if the media or a member of the public breaches the Sexual Offence Acts by identifying the alleged victims.

This is not just giving their name, but also their place of work or education, address or any still/moving image of them.

He said: “There is a prison sentence for up to six months and/or an uncapped fine for identifying in any way the alleged victims.

“Media companies, under the various professional codes, have to co-operate to ensure there is no jigsaw identification of the alleged victim(s). Sometimes judges can impose extra restrictions too to ensure this.”

Jigsaw ID involves piecing together information from various sources to identify an individual.

“Under legislation introduced in 2022, which is unique to Northern Ireland, the alleged victims have anonymity for 25 years after their death. In most countries, anonymity goes after a victim/alleged victim’s death,” said Dr Murphy.

“But alleged victims, once aged 16 or over, can sign a waiver to name themselves once no one interferes with their peace and comfort to obtain this consent.

“They do not need the permission of the judge to do this. Judges too, in exceptional circumstances, can lift the anonymity in the interests of justice. This might be used, for example, to bring forward witnesses or prove an alibi.”

At Newry Courthouse on Wednesday was a large media presence, alongside a smaller number of members of the public, who, at times, were pushing and shoving police officers to get closer to the defendants.

One officer was also spat at by a 37-year-old man. He was arrested later that day for assault on police and has since been released pending further enquiries.

Police reminded all members of the public that speculation about the identity of victims or the circumstances surrounding this case is illegal and they are “actively investigating” suspected cases online and deciding on the most appropriate action to take.

“This type of speculation, along with defamatory comments made about the defendants, could have a seriously negative impact on criminal justice proceedings,” the PSNI added.

In terms of people shouting things outside a court building, that could be deemed defamatory and could also be contempt of court if the statement was prejudicial to the court case, Dr Murphy stated.