As Adam Wagner's post on Inforrm reported, the Senior Presiding Judge and the Senior President of Tribunals has issued new guidance to all courts and tribunal judicial office holders in England and Wales.

While it does not entirely prohibit blogging and social media use, it advises that "judicial office holders who blog (or who post comments on other people's blogs) must not identify themselves as members of the judiciary" and "must also avoid expressing opinions which, were it to become known that they hold judicial office, could damage public confidence in their own impartiality or in the judiciary in general".

This has been well-documented and discussed by magistrate Trevor Coultart, Lucy Reed at Pink Tape, the UK Human Rights Blog, NearlyLegal, ObiterJ and dozens of blog commenters and tweeters. The anonymous author of the Magistrate's Blog, continues to reserve judgement. A user of the WhatDoTheyKnow.com website, Ben Liddicott, has submitted an FoI about the guidance here.

But what prompted the new guidance, now officially published on the judiciary website? According to a spokesman for the Judicial Office: "The guidance was issued because judges were concerned about the use of blogs by judicial office holders (both judges and magistrates).

"It is not appropriate to provide examples in response to the specific questions beyond the guidance itself; each judge/magistrate should use his or her own judgement.

"The guidance was agreed by the Magistrates Liaison Group: chaired by the Deputy Senior Presiding Judge (Lord Justice Gross) and attended by the Chief Magistrate, the Magistrates Association and the National Bench Chairs Forum."

Practical questions about the guidance

- Does the guidance mean a member of the judiciary can publish online under their real name but must not state their position (even if this information can be found online)? If so, what type of issues are they permitted to comment or report on?

- What about material published by an individual prior to becoming a member of the judiciary, which can still be accessed online? Are they required to remove it once in office?

- What was the particular impetus for the introduction of this guidance and what specific considerations (about the balance between the risks and freedom of expression, for example) were made?

Further reading on 'extra-judicial' activity:

A version of this post first appeared on Judith Townend's Meeja Law blog. Click here to follow Judith on Twitter and click here to follow INFORRM, the International Forum for Responsible Media.