Jail term for photographing courtroom. Wait, what?

CBS

Write this episode into any discussion of mobile technology and its discontents. A judge in the United Kingdom has sentenced a 19-year-old man to a couple of months in prison for taking a shot of a suburban London courtroom proceeding with his Blackberry.

Britain's Guardian newspaper reports the latest on the trials and tribulations of one Paul Thompson. who made an unfortunate decision to respond to a friend's email question about his whereabouts while in a public gallery in Luton Crown Court. Never in a million years would Thompson, who was in court to offer moral support for a friend being sentenced for robbing an off-duty police officer, expect what was about to happen to him.

A court bailiff pulled Thompson from his seat, relieving him of his smartphone en route to a detention cell. An hour later, Thompson was brought before presiding magistrate Barbara Mensah, where he admitted being in contempt of court. That was enough to merit a two-month sentence from Mensah who pointed out that there were notices all around the court building warning visitors not to take photographs in court.

"This is a serious offense and the message must go out that people cannot take photos," she told Thompson in handing down the verdict.

Perhaps this is of little solace to Thompson but he conceivably might have wound up with an even harsher punishment. According to Section 41 of Britain's Criminal Justice Act 1925, taking photographs in court is  verboten and the law gives crown courts the right to impose up to two years imprisonment or a fine.

A spokesman for the Howard League for Penal Reform slammed the sentence as evidence that the court was out of touch with technology.

Young people are so used to using their phones like this and a little understanding by the court would not have resulted in jail," a spokesman for the group told the Daily Mail.

As big a problem as all this posed for Thompson, perhaps an even bigger one awaits. According to his attorney, Thompson had left his eight-week-old puppy alone at home in his Luton apartment. Not only was the dog not house trained, according to the attorney, but no-one else had access to the flat.

[Hala_c]

In Illinois it's illegal to record a police officer. If you are a female, are pulled over by a rogue cop and given a chance to get out of the ticket by simply doing the cop a favor and you record the entire incident with audio then you will go to jail. As for the criminal that raped you, well he will likely walk away a free man as your recording would not be admitted by the court and the court would determine that it was consensual.

[baf827]

Gee all that for a cell phone photo, just think what this Judge would do to MURDOCH and his bunch of JOURNALISTS.

[illcountryboy]

Doesn't matter - if it banned then it is banned whether on a cell phone or regular camera. Just because he feels he is a child of privilege does not mena he can flout the law or rules as he feels without repercusion

[rainbowroosie]

Let's see: notices posted and he chose to do it anyway...that seems like contempt...however, 2 days seems more appropriate than 2 months...

[LittleJimmyJimJohnJohnson]

You don't have to sight examples from outside the United States.

In Keene, NH three people have been arrested and abused by the courts.

"corruption requires secrecy" and the 'News' seems to be assisting in the corruption.

[WillowSunstar]

Couldn't they have just fined him instead? What if he was a college student taking classes?

[illcountryboy]

Then he still has to take his punishment. And if his friend robbed someone then I doubt if his crowd was much into education.

[kenhamlett]

This is actually common and goes further since judges don't like recordings either. They don't want to be identifiable and do not want a separate recording of the proceedings. The photos are no big deal to anyone else since electronic cameras do not disturb anyone but the judge. The recordings might conflict with any revisionism in the court proceedings. If you didn't know it, some judges will have the record altered for the benefit of one party or the other or to cover their own blunders.
You see, corruption requires secrecy. Judges are often corrupt. You get the idea.

[PVperson2]

I'd, be curious to know when the idiot law dates from, the start of the 20th century maybe?

[illcountryboy]

Earlier

[LionMage1]

The clue is embedded in the article: "According to Section 41 of Britain's Criminal Justice Act 1925 [...]"
The law was passed in 1925, pretty close to the start of the 20th Century and before World War II. It's possible that this law is based on even older British legal tradition pertaining to the recording and transmission of legal proceedings (and in this case, "recording" could mean hand-written records).

[noname2138]

Personally, the judge was absolutely correct, and should be applauded for this. You cannot go anywhere today, without some type of electronic device being pointed at you, and courtroom proceedings have long been unphotographed, ie., artists renderings of courtrooms in the U.S. GREAT JOB JUDGE !! Please arrest MORE of these intrusive, rude, self absorbed "kids" who feel everything in life needs to be electronically "saved", and are hoping to get a viral video out of a trip to court.

[enlightenu]

Why was the judge personally correct? It wasn't personal, she was following the law.

[akuat]

hear hear!

[LeslieAR1]

What is so secret in court that photographs are punishable by jail? In Texas there is a very recent story about a federal judge hurling death threats and threats of the judge using the "army , navy air force" in a civil case. Shouldn't the public be aware of these activities going on in our courtrooms? The case in Texas can be found at http://www.lawinjustice.com

[p_syrus]

"A spokesman for the Howard League for Penal Reform slammed the sentence as evidence that the court was out of touch with technology.

Young people are so used to using their phones like this and a little understanding by the court would not have resulted in jail," a spokesman for the group told the Daily Mail."

-----------

It's not the court that is 'out of touch', it's the habitual users of phonecams. Safety & continued well-being are paramount concerns for the participants in any court hearing. It is not always in the best interest of the public to have the participants in an open court readily identified outside of the courtroom. This is especially the case in a criminal proceeding as was this.

Advice to the children: stop playing Silly Buggers whereever you go with your phonecams.