Rachel Jane Hews Thesis
TWITTER TRIALS AND FACEBOOK JURIES: AN ANALYSIS OF THE AUSTRALIAN SUB JUDICE RULE AND THE REGULATION OF PREJUDICIAL PUBLICITY ON SOCIAL MEDIA DURING HIGH-PROFILE CRIMINAL TRIALS Rachel Jane Hews LLB(Hons), BComm(Mgmt), GradDipEd(Senior Years), DipPolicing, Cert IV Training and Assessment Principal Supervisor Associate Professor Nicolas Suzor Associate Supervisor Dr Kylie Pappalardo Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) School of Law, Faculty of Law Queensland University of Technology 2019 i Keywords Keywords Citizen journalists, coding, contempt, content analysis, digital age, digital methods, discourse analysis, disinformation, Facebook, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of the media, Gable Tostee, Gerard Baden-Clay, high-profile criminal trials, homicide, internet, journalism, juries, juror bias, juror impartiality, juror prejudice, jury trials, media law, media manipulation, media regulation, misinformation, murder, news, open justice, prejudicial publicity, qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis, random sampling, regulation, right to a fair trial, social media, social media analysis, social media platforms, sub judice contempt of court, sub judice rule, Tableau, thematic analysis, TrISMA, Twitter. Twitter trials and Facebook juries ii Abstract High-profile criminal trials have long been a source of public spectacle in the media. Historically, both public interest and the right to free speech fuelled the publication of trial-related information. However, due to concerns the publication of potentially prejudicial information may affect an accused’s right to a fair trial, laws were established in 14th Century England to prevent, in part, the use of words to abuse a party to a suit. The modern evolution of this doctrine, the sub judice rule, aimed to prevent professional journalists and media outlets from publishing information that might prejudice a matter before the courts.
[Show full text]