Social media and judges

SOCIAL media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn have revolutionised our social lives and dominate the way we communicate with each other. Whether it comes to personal or professional use, social media platforms come with a multitude of complications.
What to post, whom to ‘friend’, whom to share information with, and what job updates to share are just some of the problems social media users face daily?
These complications are only multiplied for judges.
The social media’s potential of influencing a judge’s unique position to make an independent and impartial judgment becomes much more complex when judges are involved in social media.
With almost 1.5 billion users on Facebook and 300 million users on LinkedIn, the chances of what judges’ post on social media being seen are extremely high. This is something that judges must keep in mind.
Social media usage has blurred the lines of acceptable judicial conduct on the Internet.
The judges’ ethical standards or code of conduct require that

• A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
•  A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently, and
•  A judge shall conduct the judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities to minimise the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office.
  Judges are not to participate in activities:
•  That would lead to frequent disqualification of the judge;
•  That would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality; or
•  That would appear to a reasonable person to be coercive.
  All of these provisions could easily be violated from improper judicial use of social networking sites.
  Papua New Guinea Judicial and Legal Services Commission is the employer of judges.
  What are its advisory opinions on what constitutes acceptable judicial conduct on social media platforms?
  The judges are also categorised as leaders under the leadership code.
  What is the Ombudsman Commission’s advice on the judges’ use of social media platforms?
  Currently, some judges and magistrates are on the most common social media Facebook, either using their full name or pseudonym and comment regularly, expressing their personal and private opinions on current issues on law and order, governance, the country’s economy and cross-cultural and cross-cutting issues and chat with family and friends.
  Some considerations in respect of judges’ involvement in the social media are;
•  could the social media friendship and the judge’s personal views and comments on various issues affect their judgement and create an apprehension of bias when judges preside over cases relating to some issues they raise in the social media?
•  Will the judges disqualify themselves when their Facebook friends appear before them?
•  Will the judges disqualify themselves when issues they express and take a differing view on social media come before them for hearing?
•  How can the public be confident that a judge is independent and impartial when that judge is friends on Facebook with the lawyers, court users or law enforcement officers involved in pending cases?
  Example: A National court judge accepts a Facebook friend request from a lawyer who regularly appears before him on criminal defence matters.
  A judge is required to make a judgment on verdict and maybe sentence if the accused is found guilty.
  The accused is represented by the lawyer who is the judge’s Facebook friend, who hits a like or react positively to the the judge’s views and comments on Facebook.
  Will the judge disqualify himself when the lawyer appears on behalf of an accused client?
  There are many more.
  Does this and the many others violate a judge’s duties to maintain impartiality and avoid impropriety or the appearance of impropriety?
  What, if any, judicial standards and rules of professional conduct may be implicated because of these relationships?
  With the recent increase of social media usage, the answers to these questions and what constitutes acceptable associations between judges and individuals who appear or may appear in their courtrooms have become murky.
  There may be gossips and sentiments expressed unofficially by dissatisfied court users suggesting bias and or possible apprehension of bias on the part of the judge when some making his ruling.
  Based on the above, is it ethical for judges to participate in the social media platforms like Facebook?
  What is the Ombudsman commission or the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC’s) position on the judges’ extrajudicial activities in general?Observer