The U.K.’s Bar Standards Board has issued guidelines cautioning barristers against social media attacks on judges and the justice system. However, the devil is in the ‘lack’ of detail. The Telegraph has the story.
Barristers have been told not to launch “gratuitous attacks” on judges or the justice system on social media.
The Bar Standards Board (BSB), which regulates the profession, has revised its guidelines to provide clarity on what barristers are allowed to say online.
The nine-page guidance lists a “non-exhaustive” set of examples of the types of conduct on social media that could amount to a breach of the regulations, including “comments about judges, the judiciary or the justice system which involve gratuitous attacks or serious criticisms that are misleading and do not have a sound factual basis”.
Free-speech advocates, however, have warned the guidance fails to explain when robust debate of opposing views would be viewed as discrimination or harassment.
The BSB said the guidelines “make clear that it is the manner in which barristers express their views that is more likely to concern us rather than the substance of that view”.
However, it caveats that by adding: “Although the substance of a barrister’s view may also raise regulatory issues.”
The Bar Council welcomed the guidance, saying barristers ought to be capable of “maintaining civil discourse”.
Toby Young, founder of the Free Speech Union, warned that the guidance was “unavoidably imprecise” and open to interpretation.
He questioned the use of the word “gratuitous” and said it was not clear when a “robust response” to a point of view one disagrees with would turn into “harassment”.
He said: “This guidance represents a good-faith effort to balance barristers’ right to freedom of expression with the need to protect the reputation of the profession, but the problem is the language used by the BSB when describing what it has a ‘regulatory interest’ in is unavoidably imprecise and open to interpretation.
“For instance, what is an acceptable criticism of the justice system and what is ‘gratuitous’?
“At what point does a robust response to someone with whom you disagree cross the line and become ‘harassment’?”
The news comes after a number of barristers have used social media to vehemently disagree with colleagues, or, in some cases, to directly attack them.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The “guidance” is deliberately imprecise, and we all know why. You have to ask yourself, why now? I wonder if they’ve been inspired by what has happened to Jordan Peterson. I wonder if they have barristers in mind. Francis Hoar?
My view is that barristers discussing ‘work’ on social media are basically NOT the sort of people I would want behind me in a court of law. Discussing general legal principles I can understand but much more, no.
I only really “follow” a couple – one is Francis Hoar who was from the start a staunch opponent of lockdowns and is a stalwart in defence of free speech, and the Blackbelt Barrister on YouTube who has got a bit clickbaity lately. They usually talk about general stuff which I think is fair game. BB does talk about specific high profile cases as I guess it gets his clicks up – I am inclined to agree with you that I may not hire him because his focus seems more on promoting his brand than his ideas, whereas Hoar uses Twitter to advocate for his ideas rather than for himself.
I like Blackbelt Barrister and feel he is sincere. I don’t think the problem is that he is controversial, so much as that his popularity means he has weight and mindshare amongst the public, which is inevitably unbalancing the “hierarchy of respect” judges imagine still exists. His word has far, far more weight for opinions shaping than theirs (though not for judgement/sanction obviously).
I think he’s sincere enough, but I have found a lot of his recent stuff to be full of fluff and filler without much substance, mainly on very topical things. All that is fine if being a YouTuber is your priority. I’ve never found anything he said to be objectionable or inappropriate.
“…mindshare?” Well that’s straight out of the 1984 lexicon.
The latest video I think they will be concerned about is his one on Lucy Letby. Also, IMO very well balanced. But since there are some serious questions over that case, the judges are probably concerned his balanced view is nevertheless undermining a recent judgement.
I don’t know much about the Letby case but it seems there are serious concerns so I think it’s fair game. Other barristers and judges may be afraid of people speaking out and not feel equipped to defend themselves, as they know their arguments are weak, so they dress it up as preserving the image of the profession.
Yes, I occasionally dip in to Black Belt Barrister. He’s OK in small doses.
Discussing law in general terms is reasonable but given the way twenty year old tweats are regularly dragged out of the ether I consider barristers’ being too specific in their comments are simply reckless. It can be reckless for us so barristers?
Yes, I would agree. BB and others ought to be smart enough to know the risks they run.
I reckon this has been prompted by Blackbelt Barrister. His YouTube channel is excellent and the judges probably don’t like that he has become so influential. Overall he is a sincere and positive force I would say. I suspect this advice is just for opening space to sow FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) and raise the fear of legal or disciplinary action, by providing a basis for that action, even if legally it is doomed to failure. The process is the punishment, as has become the case with the non crime hate crime register used by the police.
“The process is the punishment”
Good point.
“Well Mr Citizen you have really pissed off the higher ups so we have been told to arrest you for a crime that doesn’t exist and take you all the way through the process. Just to ruin your life basically. We can’t actually prosecute you but you are going to think we can and it will be a long, drawn out job in line with our standard procedures. You won’t want to go through this again will you? Off you go – for now.”
Reminded me of “The Trial” (Der Prozess), by Franz Kafka
Barristers can’t, but the media can, eh?
On a similar vein the Solicitors Regulatory Authority has brought charges against a solicitor for writing to schools and GP surgeries warning them about requiring childern to wear face coverings, have lateral flow tests or getting jabbed (Law Society Gazette 22 Sept)
If they want Technocratic Totalitarianism in place, Slowly Slowly, They will have to get rid of anyone honest in the hitherto known, judiciary system.