Justice Should Be Seen By All - A Sequel

Why Courts Chose Bluesky to Notify Decisions of Public Interest

On 27 March I wrote an article querying why the Courts of New Zealand had decided to abandon X in favour of Bluesky as a means of disseminating information about the release of decision of the Courts that were of public interest.

One of my criticisms of the move was that no reasons had been given for the move. It appeared to be a shift from a platform where there was a wide following to one that was something of a niche, “progressive” bent.

I managed to contact the manager of Judicial Communications and Engagement at the Chief Justice’s office and posed the following questions:

Where did the first suggestion come from?

What evaluative process took place? Was the judiciary involved?

Who made the final decision and on what grounds?

And why were no reasons given?

I received a reply and an answer at least to some of the issues raised.

The decision to shift was described as an “operational” one which seems to suggest that it was of an internal nature rather than one arising from any external stimulus.

I was advised that the X account had received consistently low engagement in recent years.

To illustrate the drop in engagement, the top tweet published in April 2023 had 939 engagements, and the top post in April 2025 had two engagements.

Frequently there is no engagement.

The Communications people track online engagement in order to have confidence that open justice efforts are effective – it is an important measure because it demonstrates that people may have followed the post through to the judgment.

Efforts are not effective if a judgment of public interest is posted, but neither noted nor read.

It was pointed out people would continue to receive notification of judgments without X.

The Communications people have for some years run an email subscription service that notifies subscribers when a judgment of public interest is published on the Courts of NZ website – on average around 50,000 emails are sent out each month (it is an automated system). I should disclose that I am a subscriber to the email service and have never accessed a Court decision via X or Bluesky.

Subscribers to the email service include legal professionals, academics, government departments, interested individuals, and media.

All mainstream media organisations subscribe to this service. This is important because the media are “the eyes and ears of the public” in relation to the courts. In addition, the Courts of NZ LinkedIn account (with 7,600 followers) currently publishes notifications of Supreme Court decisions and upcoming judgment deliveries, as well as judicial news. I understand that the use of this platform may increase.

The Communications people are confident that these channels are improving access to the work of the courts. To these efforts, they have added Bluesky.

In addition judgments of public interest are publicly available on the Courts of NZ website, and feature on the home page. They continue to be well accessed. This suggests that the subscription email service and website are effective channels.

This information was very helpful. It is a pity it was not made available when the shift was announced.

The one other issue is “Why Bluesky” which is, like X, a microblogging social media platform designed for short-form text updates. The issue is one of reach. Bluesky is something of a niche microblogging site and one wonders whether the improvement in engagement will follow via this platform.