*/
Benjamin Greenstone questions whether the criminal courts are keeping up with new social media
While working part time in a Crown Court as a logger and also while Marshalling, I have seen a number of applications to adduce evidence of bad character based on evidence gleaned from social networking sites. This most commonly takes the form of information about who the witnesses and/or defendants are “friends” with on Facebook and who they “follow” on Twitter.
For the uninitiated, these sites do much what a “social networking site” says it will do. They provide a means to connect with people, principally friends on Facebook and celebrities or people worth “following” on Twitter. As a general rule, being “friends” on Facebook is by mutual agreement, whilst “following” on Twitter is a one-way process, although people often do follow one another. These sites have been on an unstoppable rise over the last 10 years. Although Facebook policy requires you to know the person you wish to add as a friend, there are no stringent measures to enforce this. The average Facebook user (there are 800 million worldwide) has 130 “friends” although many—and especially those whose Facebook is used as evidence against them—will have significantly more.
Advocates and judges, from my observation, have not fully understood these concepts. I have seen counsel submit, and the judge accept, that being “friends” on Facebook is evidence of an association between two or more individuals. That is not necessarily the case. Despite the Facebook policy mentioned above, it is not required that you know your “friend”, much less to associate with them regularly.
There are several factors that show that evidence from a social networking site cannot be deemed to be reliable. First, it would be a simple task to create a fake Facebook or Twitter account for an individual. There are no checks on identity; all you would need would be an e-mail address (which could again easily be created and named to match the fake account) and a photo of the individual. Considering the wealth of information already available on most people as a result of Facebook, the photo would hardly be troublesome to acquire. From there, all that would be required is to add ‘friends’ and the desired association could be fabricated. Secondly, ‘fraping’ (the act of altering someone else’s Facebook account, usually mockingly, without their knowledge or consent) can be a source of misinformation. Finally, and admittedly a problem with most evidence, is the fact that people will falsify. Whether they lie as a joke or to garner social favour, people will do it.
On Facebook, this might lead to exaggerating a situation or even completely fabricating one. There are clearly too many ways in which evidence from social networking sites can be unreliable for the courts safely or fairly to consider it in regard to a defendant or witness’ bad character. Only if the individual concerned confirms that a social networking page is genuine can it ever be considered justly. However, a defendant is not obliged to confirm this.
The solution
Ultimately, many judges and advocates are expected and required to understand media and social tools with which they may not be familiar. The two potential solutions are expert witnesses, or a simple fact sheet. It is hard to see what would qualify an individual to be an expert witness on Facebook, even if funding these days could be found. Thus the fact sheet seems the sensible answer. With the joint collaboration of, for example, the Criminal Bar Association and the Judicial College, both judges and barristers could be provided with a concise list of important facts and explanations regarding social networking sites, as well as general descriptions of their purpose. For instance, making clear what being a “Facebook friend” might mean, or what a “tweet” is, and what can fairly be deduced and concluded from them. Social networking sites can provide valuable evidence, but such evidence should be approached with caution. In the interests of justice, it is essential that all involved in its administration are kept up to date and sharp on such developing and important matters.
Benjamin Greenstone is a history undergraduate at the University of East Anglia.
For the uninitiated, these sites do much what a “social networking site” says it will do. They provide a means to connect with people, principally friends on Facebook and celebrities or people worth “following” on Twitter. As a general rule, being “friends” on Facebook is by mutual agreement, whilst “following” on Twitter is a one-way process, although people often do follow one another. These sites have been on an unstoppable rise over the last 10 years. Although Facebook policy requires you to know the person you wish to add as a friend, there are no stringent measures to enforce this. The average Facebook user (there are 800 million worldwide) has 130 “friends” although many—and especially those whose Facebook is used as evidence against them—will have significantly more.
Advocates and judges, from my observation, have not fully understood these concepts. I have seen counsel submit, and the judge accept, that being “friends” on Facebook is evidence of an association between two or more individuals. That is not necessarily the case. Despite the Facebook policy mentioned above, it is not required that you know your “friend”, much less to associate with them regularly.
There are several factors that show that evidence from a social networking site cannot be deemed to be reliable. First, it would be a simple task to create a fake Facebook or Twitter account for an individual. There are no checks on identity; all you would need would be an e-mail address (which could again easily be created and named to match the fake account) and a photo of the individual. Considering the wealth of information already available on most people as a result of Facebook, the photo would hardly be troublesome to acquire. From there, all that would be required is to add ‘friends’ and the desired association could be fabricated. Secondly, ‘fraping’ (the act of altering someone else’s Facebook account, usually mockingly, without their knowledge or consent) can be a source of misinformation. Finally, and admittedly a problem with most evidence, is the fact that people will falsify. Whether they lie as a joke or to garner social favour, people will do it.
On Facebook, this might lead to exaggerating a situation or even completely fabricating one. There are clearly too many ways in which evidence from social networking sites can be unreliable for the courts safely or fairly to consider it in regard to a defendant or witness’ bad character. Only if the individual concerned confirms that a social networking page is genuine can it ever be considered justly. However, a defendant is not obliged to confirm this.
The solution
Ultimately, many judges and advocates are expected and required to understand media and social tools with which they may not be familiar. The two potential solutions are expert witnesses, or a simple fact sheet. It is hard to see what would qualify an individual to be an expert witness on Facebook, even if funding these days could be found. Thus the fact sheet seems the sensible answer. With the joint collaboration of, for example, the Criminal Bar Association and the Judicial College, both judges and barristers could be provided with a concise list of important facts and explanations regarding social networking sites, as well as general descriptions of their purpose. For instance, making clear what being a “Facebook friend” might mean, or what a “tweet” is, and what can fairly be deduced and concluded from them. Social networking sites can provide valuable evidence, but such evidence should be approached with caution. In the interests of justice, it is essential that all involved in its administration are kept up to date and sharp on such developing and important matters.
Benjamin Greenstone is a history undergraduate at the University of East Anglia.
Benjamin Greenstone questions whether the criminal courts are keeping up with new social media
While working part time in a Crown Court as a logger and also while Marshalling, I have seen a number of applications to adduce evidence of bad character based on evidence gleaned from social networking sites. This most commonly takes the form of information about who the witnesses and/or defendants are “friends” with on Facebook and who they “follow” on Twitter.
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
Creating advocacy opportunities for juniors is now the expectation but not always easy to put into effect. Tom Mitcheson KC distils developing best practice from the Patents Court initiative already bearing fruit
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
The long-running fee-paid judicial pensions saga continues. The current cut-off date for giving notice of election to join FPJPS is 31 March 2024, and that date now gives rise to a serious problem, warns HH John Platt