News

Lady Hale says judges don’t use social media for fear of trolls

By on
8

You won’t be Snapchatting a Supreme any time soon

The president of the Supreme Court says that she and her colleagues on the UK’s top court don’t use social media in case of being trolled.

Lady Hale said that among the reasons that top judges don’t have personal Twitter or Instagram accounts is the risk of “anonymous and extremely hurtful comment” that might affect their ability to decide cases impartially.

Hale was speaking to a parliamentary committee yesterday alongside deputy president Lord Reed.

The pair were delighted with the Supreme Court’s Twitter and Instagram accounts — “people look at it, a lot!” — but thought that individual judges using social media could lead to problems.

“Obviously it’s a good thing if it’s used positively”, Hale mused, “but on the other hand if you engage as an individual, it’s difficult if not impossible to control what you put out there. You have to be very careful not to put the wrong sort of information out there because you never know where it may get to.”

She added:

“There is also the capacity for anonymous and extremely hurtful comment to come along. It’s not that easy for people to shrug it off. It is very important that we go about our job in accordance with our oaths — ‘without fear or favour, affection or ill-will’ — and social media could distort that if we paid too much attention to it. So I’m very cautious.

Reed pointed out that Facebook snaps of judges holding a glass of bubbly at a family wedding, for example, would inevitably be used to illustrate stories. The Scottish judge claimed that, during the high-profile Gina Miller case, journalists trawled through the social media accounts of the justices’ wives, children and grandchildren in an effort to dig up dirt.

Supreme Court judges have frequently spoken out about the importance of maintaining their independence in the face of hostile media attention, often citing the Daily Mail‘s notorious “Enemies of the People” headline as an example. Both judges said yesterday that media scrutiny had increased in recent years, with Reed noting “shriller adverse comment” about judges in the press.

Judges in other jurisdictions do use social media to promote public understanding of their work. Stephen Dillard, Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals of Georgia in the United States, is a prominent example.

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter

8 Comments

Anonymous

Funny, I thought all judges had onlyfans accounts these days to held them live in expensive London on their pathetic sub-200k salaries đŸ˜‚

(3)(4)

Anonymous

Lady Hale is a blatant troll

(2)(0)

Infatuated of Tunbridge Wells

I love you, Katie.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Welcome to the real world

(2)(0)

Anonymous

I understand what she’s saying, but judges need to be more human and less out of touch to be able to properly judge the people in front of them.

The fact that they’re not is why there is so much bias in the judiciary.

(3)(3)

Anonymous

The only public figure who has ever improved their reputation on Twitter is James Blunt.

I think it’s important that for the impartiality of law that the judiciary keep mum on their own personal views.

I already think I could guess, for example, Lady Hale’s views based on the extrajudicial statements she has made. For me, that is already too much information.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

I disagree – judges will have opinions on things, the same as everyone else. Keeping quiet about them just makes them look out of touch and means potential bias won’t be detected. Its part of the reason the judiciary is unfortunately riddled with bias.

(0)(0)

Comments are closed.

Related Stories