 |
| Daniel J. Escott |
Judges and courts using social media can influence the perception and administration of law. By sharing their views on legal issues, judges can educate the public about the law and the judicial process. However, judges must be mindful of their ethical obligations when using social media, as their online activity can impact public perception of the judiciary. Inappropriate online conduct or the expression of personal opinions that could be perceived as biased may undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
Courts can use social media to share information about cases and decisions when they are considered within the public’s current interest. For example, if a decision affects a controversial law or a popular public figure, a court’s clear and impartial communication of the facts and reasons of their decision could work to counter misinformation directly. This can help to increase transparency and public understanding of the judicial process. However, courts must be mindful of the need to protect confidential information when using social media.
Judiciary’s role in Canada’s constitutional democracy
The judiciary is one of the three branches of government in Canada’s constitutional democracy, and judges are expected to uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct, including minimizing activities that could undermine the public’s perception of judicial independence. As a result of these restraints, judges using social media, even for public education, could have political or even constitutional consequences. For example, if a judge expresses a personal opinion on a matter that is or may come before the court, this could be seen as an attempt to influence the outcome of the case. This could undermine public confidence in the judiciary’s independence and impartiality. To that end, the Guidelines expressly state that judges should refrain from expressing personal views on disputes or matters that may come before them, but encourage them to engage in education activities.
Courts could use social media to address access to justice issues. By providing information about court procedures and services, courts can help to make the justice system more accessible to the public. Courts can also use social media to engage with the public and provide feedback on how the justice system can be improved. This sort of use could meaningfully align with the judiciary’s role in Canadian society, if it is used responsibly and impartially.
Social media, when approached with prudence and guided by clear ethical standards, offers courts and judges a powerful medium to enhance transparency, educate the public, and address longstanding access to justice challenges. Drawing on frameworks such as the Canadian Judicial Council’s Guidelines on Social Media Use, the judiciary can strike a balance between embracing digital tools and maintaining public trust in judicial independence. However, the Guidelines rightly point out that judges’ social media engagement can undermine “the independence, integrity, impartiality, or commitment to equality of the judge or the judiciary as a whole.”
Boons and barriers for public education and engagement
Social media platforms offer judges and courts an unprecedented opportunity to connect with the public they serve. By using social media effectively, judges can demystify the legal process, enhance legal literacy, and foster greater understanding of the justice system.
Imagine a judge using social media to explain a recent court decision in plain language, or a court using live streaming to provide virtual access to public hearings. These initiatives can increase transparency, build public trust, and strengthen the relationship between the judiciary and the community.
While the potential benefits of social media are significant, judges must navigate this digital landscape cautiously. The fundamental principles of judicial impartiality and independence must remain paramount, even in the face of increased public engagement.
Judges must be mindful that their online presence can be scrutinized and interpreted in various ways. A seemingly harmless comment or social media interaction could be perceived as bias or could potentially undermine public confidence in their impartiality.
Social media as a tool for empowerment
Social media can also be a powerful tool for addressing access to justice issues. Through concerted efforts to provide information about court procedures, legal resources and self-help tools, courts can empower individuals to better understand and navigate the legal system.
Social media can also facilitate public discussions about access to justice challenges and potential solutions. By engaging with the public online, courts can gather valuable feedback and insights, leading to more responsive and inclusive justice services. Canadian courts face a profound difficulty in collecting reliable and actionable data to serve as evidence in their policy-making processes and administrative decisions, and this sort of public engagement might serve to not only empower the public in creating a dialogue with the justice system, but also to empower the courts to be more responsive to the needs and realities of the Canadian public.
Conclusion
The use of social media by judges and courts presents both exciting possibilities and significant challenges. When used responsibly, social media can be a powerful tool for public education, community engagement and enhancing access to justice.
However, judges and courts must always be mindful of their ethical obligations and the paramount importance of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. By embracing the digital age with prudence and responsibility, the judiciary can leverage the power of social media to strengthen the administration of justice and better serve the public.
Daniel J. Escott is a research fellow at the Artificial Intelligence Risk and Regulation Lab and the Access to Justice Centre for Excellence. He is currently pursuing an LLM at Osgoode Hall Law School, and holds a JD from the University of New Brunswick and a BBA from the Memorial University of Newfoundland.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.