Report this comment to a moderator

Attorney General may 'take action' if anonymity orders are broken

I'm still puzzled as to how a Twit can be prosecuted for contempt when they have not been served with the injunction, and cannot even be proved to know that it definitely exists or what its terms are. Furthermore, unless the applicant's name is actually known how can any Twit know for a fact that what they are tweeting is in fact in breach of an injunction and not just idle gossip? The standard of proof for contempt is the criminal standard, and I don't see how it could be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Twit actually (a) knew for a fact that there was an injunction covering his tweet; and (2) that he definitely knew the name of the applicant. Grieve is just pi**ing in the wind, and he knows it.

7-Jun-2011

3:53 pm