There were two legal news stories this week that were not linked but had an impact on free speech.

In the first, Tommy Robinson was jailed for 13 months for contempt of court. He live-streamed a video outside of Leeds Crown Court when there were reporting restrictions in place.

In the second, the Court of Appeal announced that they were putting plans in place to begin broadcasting court sessions live on YouTube.

At first glance these two stories seem contradictory but for the discerning reader they are two sides of the same coin.

Free speech is hugely important and never more so than within the context of our justice system. As anyone who has watched my video on the rule of law will know, one of my favourite quotes comes from the case of R v Sussex Justices ex p McCarthy [1924]:

“justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”

The judge who decided that case probably did not foresee a racist bigot using social media to prejudice a trial nearly 100 years later but does that matter? After all the principle should be timeless, right?

Well when we are thinking about this our initial presumption should always be in favour of openness but we have to concede that there are legitimate exceptions.

Children and vulnerable adults should be protected when there is a risk to their safety. Our freedom of expression is therefore balanced against other demands such as the right to a fair trial and, in extreme cases, the right to life.

When the line is less clear the balancing act becomes more difficult.

Very few people will miss Tommy Robinson and the conviction will serve as a warning to anyone else thinking about trying a similar stunt but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t scrutinise the procedure. The Guide on Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts runs to 45 pages, offers a lot of discretion to judges and still lives in a world dominated by mainstream news outlets rather than social media.

The justice system must be protected within a culture that is ultimately grounded on the principle of free speech or it won’t be much of a justice system to protect.