This article explores how Australian courts are using social media to disclose information about decisions as well as to advise about court appointments, media reports and administrative matters. It examines how the social media channels are being used and any issues or risks associated with that use.

Tips

• Social media offers further channels to an organisation to promote its activities and services.
• A clear social media strategy is needed to ensure that how each channel is to be used is appropriate and effective.
• Additional resources are required particularly if Facebook is to be monitored and managed.

Introduction

Social media tools such as Twitter and Facebook are being adopted by government organisations, non-profit bodies, schools, businesses, and police as a means of providing information to the public, professionals and stakeholders.¹ The police, for instance, use social media both in investigations and for general communication to the public, and emergency services have used social media effectively in natural disasters.

Courts have also begun to realise the value in using social media to communicate directly with the media and public about the work of the courts. In Australia, courts now use Twitter,² Facebook and YouTube to varying degrees. This article briefly examines this use and highlights any issues or risks associated with it.

Use of social media by courts

The court system is a very traditional and conservative environment, and the use of social media in such an environment is both innovative and challenging. In the last decade, there has been increasing focus on courts not only facilitating the media’s access to court documents and information, but in also increasing accessibility for the community.³ Social media provides opportunities to facilitate both the media and community access to courts.

One of the perceived strengths of social media is its ability to improve communication between an organisation and its stakeholders through exchanges of information and ideas. Social media also offers channels not totally dominated by the media. In August 2011, the Chief Justice of Victoria, the Honourable Marilyn Warren, stated that the “courts should take advantage of social media such as Twitter and Facebook to better explain themselves to the public”.⁴

Courts have always had a cautious approach to reporting and broadcasting of proceedings and decisions.⁵ So when courts themselves decide to tweet information about decisions and proceedings, these concerns must be handled with care. Court reporting requires that disclosure must not interfere with the administration of justice.⁶

Use of Twitter, Facebook and Youtube

Twitter

The Supreme Court of Victoria was the first Australian court to commence a Twitter account in March 2011. The Magistrates Court of Victoria started a pilot Twitter account in July 2012. The County Court set up a Twitter account in October 2012 but the account did not become active until about March 2013 when a new media person was employed. The Family Court commenced a Twitter account in October 2012. Other courts with Twitter accounts include the Supreme Courts of NSW, South Australia, Tasmania, and the ACT, plus the District Court of NSW.

One of the reasons Victorian based courts were the first courts to adopt Twitter may have been the existence of a very active court social media group in Victoria, comprising representatives from the courts, from the Justice Department and from justice related bodies such as the Judicial College of Victoria, the Law Institute and the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Board.

The authors examined the first four court Twitter accounts started and found that they worked well, developing a new channel of communication, albeit a one-way channel. The court officers we interviewed were confident that they were reaching new audiences who would not normally visit their websites. The cost of operating the accounts was low, depending on one, sometimes two people to manage content, usually as part of their existing duties. The activity on the various accounts varied, often because the person responsible for the tweets left the role or the champion of social media moved on.

The way the courts used Twitter depended on the level, as, for example, the majority of Magistrates’ Court of Victoria tweets tended towards public relations and the provision of general information about the court (opening hours, changes to fee structures, etc), and the majority of the Supreme Court of Victoria tweets related to advice about judgments and appeals.

The level of the court influenced the content of tweets and the potential risk. There is only a low level of risk associated with tweets about court closures and other administrative details, links to media articles and court appointments. The risks are higher when the names of parties are being tweeted and links to court hearings are provided. The public interest in tweets from lower tier courts is obviously lower than in the tweets around judgments.

This article is an excerpt from a longer article by Emeritus Professor Margaret Jackson and Dr Marita Shelly. You can read the full article here.