In 1993, James Bulger, then two years old, was murdered by two eleven year-old boys, Robert Thompson and James Venables, near Liverpool in England. As a consequence they were both sentenced to life imprisonment in 1993. In 2001, however, they were released after having served eight years behind bars. They were given new identities and moved to secret locations. A worldwide injunction was also imposed; preventing anyone from publishing, broadcasting, depicting or describing any details about the boys or their new identities.

In early 2013 two individuals, Neil Harkins and David Liddle, posted photographs that they alleged were of Venables and Thompson as adults on their Facebook and Twitter pages. In both instances, the pictures were shared hundreds of times, reaching a wide section of the public.

The UK's Treasury Solicitor wrote letters to Harkins and Liddle, informing them that the publications were prohibited and asking them to remove the photographs. While both admitted that they were aware of the injunction and breached it anyway, they immediately tried to correct their wrongdoing by removing the photographs and by apologising.

Harkins posted on his Facebook profile, in part: "Interesting that this photograph is not allowed to be shown and there is an investigation on how it got out. What is more interesting is why he got released and protected in the first place." Liddle, on the other hand, said on Facebook that "I heard about it [the injunction] for a while, but posted it as people are talking about being prosecuted for putting it and I don't think it's right" (sic).

Harkins claimed he believed that the images were not within any legal constraint as they were freely available on the internet. He also claimed that he was under the impression that such restrictions were limited to images published by the media. Liddle claimed that he posted the picture as a concerned and upset parent, and that he was not fully aware of the severity and implications of the injunction.

Harkins and Liddle were both charged with contempt of court. This is the first time that the UK's Attorney General has brought contempt proceedings involving social media. It was submitted by the Attorney General that it did so because the use of such information was widespread and there was a possibility that it could have very severe consequences.

The Court considered the potential physical harm to Thompson, Venables and to other persons who may have been mistakenly identified as them. When making its decision, the Court took account of the fact that both parties were aware of the prohibition, although they may not have been aware of the full extent of the consequences. Their conduct, it was determined, could not be excused by the fact that others were publishing the same pictures. The Court was at pains to point out that vigilantism has no place in a civilised society.

In determining the sentence, the Court took note of the mitigating fact that both parties immediately cooperated by removing the pictures and by apologising for their conduct. The Court also considered the good characters of both men and the impact that a sentence would have on their families.

The Court further held that while it aimed to punish the two men, it also wanted to deter future contempt of court. The Court held that nine months' imprisonment was an appropriate sentence. After taking into consideration mitigating factors, however, their sentences were suspended for fifteen months. The Court concluded that if any similar publication occurred through social media in the future, there would be little prospect of success for a person responsible for that publication.

The idea of anonymity on social media as well as the fact that unlawful material often 'goes viral' sometimes creates the sense that there is little or no accountability for breaching the law online. This case indicates that there is a growing realisation amongst law enforcement agencies of the potential for social media to be used to breach the law, particularly with respect to interdicts against the publication of specific material.

The case further indicates a willingness to prosecute individuals who initiate the spread of unlawful material on social media, regardless of the fact that hundreds of other people may also have participated in disseminating the material. The courts in South Africa will in all probability rely on such precedents should similar cases arise here.