There have been several notices about the risks of speculation and online gossip after Sir Jeffrey Donaldson was charged with multiple historical sex offences, including rape, on Friday.
The Lagan Valley MP resigned as leader of the DUP following the charges and told party officers he would be “strenuously contesting” all of them.
His wife Eleanor is also charged with aiding and abetting additional offences in relation to the same police investigation.
Yesterday Northern Ireland’s Attorney General Brenda King issued a warning about the need for caution around commentary on active criminal proceedings.
While not referring to the Donaldson case directly, her office said: “The Attorney advises the public as well as media outlets to think about potential consequences before publishing, posting or sharing commentary, online or otherwise.
“The Attorney would remind the public and the media of the risk of any person publishing, posting or sharing material being found to be in contempt of court.”
Dr Colm Murphy is a lecturer in media law at Ulster University.
He warned that “there’s fairly severe dangers, not only if you name the alleged victim of a sexual offence, but because two people have been charged now it’s ‘case active’ and that means that there is a whole list of things members of the public and media can’t say or post online”.
“Any reference to any evidence in the case – even if it was untrue – apart from what is on the court order, means you can be held personally liable for contempt of court,” he added.
Complainants in sexual abuse cases, historical or otherwise, are granted lifelong anonymity, that stands regardless of the outcome of criminal proceedings.
This anonymity is guaranteed from the moment they make an allegation that they are the victim of a sexual offence.
Meanwhile, contempt of court happens when someone risks unfairly influencing a court case.
Dr Murphy said people can be prosecuted if they post “any other material that has the potential to create prejudice in both directions – for example, if you had a protest outside a court in favour of a defendant – that can be seen as prejudicial”.
“If you put anything online or take any actions that could be prejudicial to a jury, it would be contempt of court, and it’s an unlimited fine, so there’s no cap on what you could have to pay, or you can face imprisonment.
“Social media organisations as well, if they don’t act expeditiously [to remove such posts] can be done for contempt of court too, as can officers of the organisation.”
Posting anything which may lead to ‘jigsaw identification’ of victims – including their place of work, schools they attended, or family relatives – is also against the law.
Owen Beattie is a Belfast-based solicitor and has previously represented multiple survivors of historical institutional abuse in Northern Ireland.
He further warned that online speculation could lead to the collapse of trials.
He said “there have been recent welcomed developments in the anonymity afforded to both suspects and complainants” regarding sexual assault cases.
“Social media commentary in this context must be closely scrutinised,” he added.
The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) states that “a victim is guaranteed anonymity even when someone else accuses the defendant of the offence” and that only the victims themselves “can choose to waive their right to anonymity, without the consent of the court, so long as they are over 16”.
Mr Beattie added: “Society must ensure that the rights of the complainant and those of the suspect are protected so that the state can discharge its obligations to investigate, prosecute and try suspects.
“Adverse social media content and the naming of complainants or suspects may have detrimental far-reaching implications on fair trial rights.
“Police investigations may be contaminated, criminal trials may collapse and the rights of the complainant and those of the suspect may be irretrievably infringed.”
The legal experts’ comments came after the PSNI said they “are aware of ongoing commentary on social media platforms and in the mainstream media regarding the timeline of this investigation”.
“We are reminding members of the public and media outlets that speculation is unhelpful, inaccurate and may ultimately have a negative impact on a criminal justice process,” a police spokesperson continued.
“On March 29 2024, we confirmed that a 61-year-old man had been charged with non-recent sexual offences, alongside a 57-year-old woman who was charged with aiding and abetting additional offences.”
Ulster Unionist leader Doug Beattie told the BBC’s Nolan Show that he believes police should do more to crack down on such online speculation.
“Just because this is high profile, it doesn’t mean the victims are any less victims,” said the Upper Bann MLA.
“If people get away with doing this now, they will do it again.
“I think the police absolutely do need to make an example of people, whether that’s getting a hold of them and giving them a caution, I don’t know; I’m not going to be prescriptive on what they should do, but I certainly do think they need to be doing more than putting out a statement.
“They need to cut this and they need to cut this pretty quickly.”
He emphasised that there should be a focus on the “criminal process and the victims right across Northern Ireland – not just related to this case, but any case of this nature – who may be suffering from media speculation, and certainly social media speculation”.
William Turner is a seasoned U.K. correspondent with a deep understanding of domestic affairs. With a passion for British politics and culture, he provides insightful analysis and comprehensive coverage of events within the United Kingdom.
