Jailed for a photo taker in court

[kombizz]

Paul Thompson, a 19 year-old young man took a snapshot from the court with his mobile phone. As a result of his action,

he was charged with contempt of court and sentenced to two months in jail. <br>

To read more, please click <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/butterworth-and-bowcott-on-law/2011/sep/26/modern-

technology-court-imprisoned-taking-photo">here</a>.

[richard_john_edwards]

I would say jail is a tad harsh, but the justice system should be respected. A tough lesson for this kid to learn

[Matt Laur]

<p>It's called "contempt" of court for a reason. Typical "the rules don't apply to me" behavior.<br /><br />There's a reason that some judges (or the court system/jurisdiction in which they operate) don't allow photos, recordings, etc., under some circumstances. Some witnesses may be appearing under very difficult or even dangerous conditions. Some testimony may not be forthcoming if someone thinks their appearance in court is also going to be an appearance on some 19-year-old kid's Facebook page with an obnoxious caption, etc. The judge, if not the kid who ignored a building full of signs prohibiting photography in the courtroom, understands that a trial involves people in often difficult situations that are not yet guilty of anything, or who may be pressing a case that involves all sorts of delicate complications.<br /><br />Sentencing is a different matter - guilt has been established. But a judge should have serious discretion in these matters during a trial.</p>

[richard_john_edwards]

Well said Matt, I was going to go to that length but refrained, my works as a court liaison person, the reasons you

mention and more are why, this would have been treated harshly. They need to set examples here, respect the

judiciary system.

[mike l]

<p>Sheer stupidity, there are plenty of notices up warning and informing of the penalty. I had to smile though as I remember time as a juror earlier this year. I had put my medium format film pinhole camera into my rucksack thinking I might get some time during the lunch break to take some pictures around the city. At the security check at the entrance to the court buiding I got an intensive grilling and told to make sure I didn't bring it back the next day. Meanwhile anyone with a mobile phone in their pocket can just wander straight in!</p>

[goldbergbarry]

<p>I may be in the minority but I think that jail time is deserved. This could have led to the case having to be retried. Even if the defendant loses, they still might be able to get a retrial based on this.</p>

<p>Ignorance of the law is no excuse.</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>If you do the crime then you do the time:</p>

[wogears]

<p>Sentence is merited by the offense.</p>

[warren_wilson]

<p>If we give people freedom of information, there is no knowing what they will share. If we have freedom of assembly, it will inevitably end in terrorism. Freedom of speech will just encourage seditious opinions.</p>

<p>I say the bugger got off lightly. They should have thrown away the key and kept society orderly. Only with harsh sentencing will people learn to properly fear authority.</p>

<p>We've come to a sad pass where these opinions resonate.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Good rhetoric, Warren. I think paparazzi should also have the right to express their journalistic and artistic freedom anywhere, in the court or at our home at any time of day. ;)</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>So, Warren - how would you feel if your 12 year old daughter was a witness in a rape and murder trial. Comfortable with having some guy off the street walk in with a camera to point at her during that process?<br /><br />How about a trial of someone being prosecuted for identity theft, and the prosecution is displaying for the jury some large projected images of <em>your</em> bank documents, driver's license and other sensitive information. I know, let's let a guy off the street shoot that for internet circulation! Information wants to be free, right? Right? Freedom, man!</p>

[Brad_]

>>> We've come to a sad pass where these opinions resonate.

 

Damn straight!

 

Everyone in the back should be able to freely shoot, because that freedom is much more important than

the trial and the quest for justice for those involved on the other side of the railing. And you should be able

to shoot with whatever cam you have; cellphone cams, point-n-shoots, dSLRs, flash, video. And you need

to have the freedom to move around, to get good angles.

 

And then of course Tweet-pic what you've snagged and put it on Facebook. After all, if you don't document and post the

event for your friends and the world to see, you weren't really there...

[wogears]

<blockquote>

<p>If we give people freedom of information, there is no knowing what they will share.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For instance, your credit card numbers? The identity of an NYPD agent who has infiltrated a terrorist cell? Valerie Plame's relationship with the CIA?</p>

 

[John Seaman]

<p>I wouldn't normally criticise a court's sentence, not having been there having any kind of expert knowledge of the law. However it's common knowledge that all kinds of serious crimes, such as theft, assault, drugs and serious driving offences, many of them with real victims, are being "punished" by police cautions, conditional discharges, community sentences, fines and probation. In this context I suggest that the sentence given to this guy is manifestly unfair.</p>

[andylynn]

Witness intimidation is a huge problem in some types of cases. Balance the freedom to shoot against the freedom to

testify without intimidation, and, say, a witness in a gang violence related trial not having his photo sent to the

defendant's friends is much more important to the interests of justice than the right to photograph a trial. The public

can come to court already, and can write anything, make their own trial transcript, draw sketches.

 

I know that on this forum the photographer is always right, but that's not how it really works.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Court protocol is pretty unusually strict with a bit too much pomp and circumstance IMO. Hey, this is the "hip" generation. Loosen up, will ya'!</p>

<p>I had my "gimmy" cap pulled right off my head by the bailiff during jury duty selection. Wanted to tell 'em..."All you had to do is ask me, sh*tbird!"</p>

<p>I use the cap to keep my hair in place and hide my creeping, middle-aged hipster bald spot since I hadn't gotten a haircut. They need to have signs posted listing all these fussy rules. Its' worse than church for cryin' out loud!</p>

<p>Not sure where our freedom of speech rights extend with regard to law enforcement when you've got all the media telling regular Joe with an iPhone to be an iREPORTER and send in their video footage/pics acting as a volunteer journalist/news gatherer.</p>

<p> </p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Get real people. This is ludicrous and offensive that a judge would react in this way. This isn't a case of an informed adult consciously thumbing his nose at the rules of the courtroom. This was not a paparzzi scheme to sneak a photo of a celebrity trial. This was not someone planted by the defense to trigger a mistrial. This is a young kid, barely of legal age, who made an innocent mistake. Whether he saw "no pictures" signs or not he was at least trying to obey the "no talking on cell phones" rule and if he thought about it at all probably figured he was choosing the action least likely to disturb the courtroom. In hindsight, he should not have had his phone out or on in the coutroom at all. But at worst he is guilty of stupidity. The bailiff should have told him to put the phone away. At most he should have been fined. But to now have a record and lose two months of his life is unconscionable, far out of proportion to his alledged "crime." I certainly hope he has a good lawyer who will make this go away, and that the judge is reviewed by his superiors for acting so far out of proportion to the incident.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I would imagine, Craig, that most judges are by now excrutiatingly tired of people (especially younger people) disrupting truly sober, life-changing-for-some-people proceedings, with portable "device" shenanigans. 19? Old enough to risk other people's lives driving around at highway speeds. Old enough to carry a weapon in the military. Old enough to attend a college, vote for the people who run our governments.<br /><br />I'm going to give all of the 19-year-olds I know enough credit to know that signs put up in places that are <em>all about legal protocols</em> aren't just expressing their fondest wishes when they say that photography is not allowed in the middle of someone's trial.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This isn't a case of an informed adult consciously thumbing his nose at the rules of the courtroom</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A nineteen year old is adult enough to be allowed in the courtroom? If so, he should also be adult enough to <em>ignore his phone</em> until he leaves the courtroom. You're giving him credit for thinking about <em>not</em> ignoring his phone enough to be unaware that someone wanted to chat with him, but in an only slightly less disruptive way? I'd expect the judge expressed his profound irritation at this guy specifically because he was an adult, and he <em>was</em> informed, and decided that his priorities were more important than the those of the accused/defendent in front of the judge. Regardless, I suspect that the judge has every intention of springing him long before that two months is up. I'd be surprised if it went two weeks.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Bottom line - judges have a lot of latitude as to what is and isn't allowed in their court rooms. In some states and cases, photography and cameras are allowed. In others not so.</p>

<p>It comes down to a matter of respect for the judicial system and the judge. In this instance - the judge obviously felt enough warning had been given and that the "photographer" needed some time in the workhouse to learn that rule / fact.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[ernest-b]

<p>Below the original article is a link to the rest of the story.<br>

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/09/court-thompson-law-story</p>

[goldbergbarry]

<blockquote>

<p>I had my "gimmy" cap pulled right off my head by the bailiff during jury duty selection. Wanted to tell 'em..."All you had to do is ask me, sh*tbird!"</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry Tim but with all due respect, I would never have worn a hat into court. I don't know, maybe my definition of common sense is not at all common.</p>

<p>And common now, this is not a first amendment issue!</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>On more serious reason not to allow photography in court is that it will destroy the market for court sketch artists. At least in those high profile cases that make the newspaper.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Can't wear a hat in court?!</p>

<p>Never heard of that rule, but then I've only been called for jury duty twice and have stayed out of courthouses all of my 52 years. I really don't like the atmosphere in them.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>As Matt says the jail sentence was not for taking a photo in court but for Contempt of Court - a crime taken very seriously in the UK and always carrying heavy penalties. This is the lightest UK contempt of court sentence I am aware of so he was being treated leniently.</p>

[richard_john_edwards]

Feed him to the lions I say! Young adults like this young man demonstrate lack of respect, it's time they learnt that

there are consequences to their action. Hard lesson but hey someone has to teach them if their parents failed.