Courts and The Media

People are constantly questioning the world that surrounds them, a curiosity that extends to the proceedings of the court room. Society seeks to understand the structure and powers of the judiciary in establishing a just, fair, equal and accessible process, as based upon the principles of procedural fairness, natural justice and the rule of law.  The media as an expansive, informative body is turned to provide answers on this powerful and complex process (Marsh; Meville, 2009, p.141) 

This vested interest of the media extends also from the right of any individual to participate in any legal proceeding they wish, whether it be for evidentiary purposes, legal personnel, the accused offender and/or as an observer.  The media act as a communicative centre to ensure this right, evident within its humble paper court pamphlet beginnings, to live televised broadcasts as well as the technologically, savvy tweets, transporting us inside the court room (Marsh; Meville, 2009, p.141-142). All of which have provided immediate information to the public, detailing the progression of court room proceedings. 

This open justice principle was put into practise in the 2014 South African High Court trial of alleged murder Oscar Pistorius.  The South African Olympic athlete, on the 15^th of February, 2013 was formally charged and taken into custody for the murder of his model girlfriend Reeva SteenKamp (The Guardian, 2014). Due to his high profile status, in lure of the London Olympic Games (2012), the case was extensively covered by the global mass media and provoked a global outcry for information pertaining to the case.  With this in mind, the Gauteng High Court Judge President Dustan Mlambo in Pretoria ruled that all audio evidence, as well as the opening and closing arguments and consented witness testimonies will be broadcasted live, globally via audio recordings or audio-visual footage (The Guardian, 2014).  This controversial decision was made by the judge in favour to not only feed public interest into the speculated criminal behaviour of a highly publicised individual but to also educate the public through the media of the proceedings of the criminal justice system (The Guardian, 2014).  To ensure that no aspect of the trial could be seen a miscarriage of justice the cameras could act only as a voyeur. The remotely controlled camera could only show wide shots of the permitted coverage, meaning that witness testimonies could only be broadcasted if the witness themselves had consented (The Guardian, 2014).  

However this sense of ‘open justice’ has been constantly debated to hinder the very principles it is built on. Most particularly the right of an individual brought before the law to be treated equally and with adequate understanding, power and representation (Marsh; Meville, 2009, p.141). It is feared that cameras in the court room will allow the public to bring it upon themselves to judge the circumstances, essentially a trial by media, rather than educating themselves of the process. 

As exemplified within the case of OJ Simpson, where televising the case promoted a ‘thirteenth juror’ mental within society. Rather than being informative, the public saw this as an opportunity focus solely on the dramatics of the case, particularly the underlying presence of prejudice and racism and its role in determining the guilt or innocence of the former NFL player (Marsh et al. 2009, p. 144).

The recent New South Wales Independent Commission against Corruption Inquiry exemplified the same sort of feared media presence in the court room. Principles of procedural fairness, natural justice and the rule of law were completely ignored by reporters sitting in on former primer Barry O’Farell’s testimony.   Reporters commonly tweeting and/or message their co-workers about the testimony as it was happening, seemingly infringing on the principle of a just, fair and unbiased trial process. In the press conference above the ‘trial by media’ mentality is shown to be defaming the character of the former premier, exemplifying his wrongs rather than his success as the premier of New South Wales.

Legislation was been implemented globally to alleviate this miscarriage of justice as well as regulated the media presence within the trial process (Marsh et al. 2009, p.141), one of which was recently enacted in New South Wales.  The Courts and Other Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2013 (NSW) recently passed within both house of state parliament, establishing restrictions on unauthorised multi-media devices within the court room (Hutchinson, 2013, p.1). Under schedule one, sub section one and two, legal personal and journalists have been exempted from these restrictions however there is an established discretionary power in which the judge can rule in favour of prohibiting coverage a trial via any multi-media device and/or social media network by any persons in the court room no matter their professional status and/or reasoning (Courts and Other Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2013 NSW).

In summary it can be clearly understood why there is a mixed response to the presence of media within the trial process. Legislation such as the one mentioned previously has been implemented to regulate the media presence in the court as purely educational and informative, in order to ensure that a ‘open justice’ concept does not provoke an unjust, unfair and biased trial process. 

References

• Courts  and Other Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2013 (NSW) available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/bill/caolfab2013479
• Hutchinson, J (2013) ‘Fears courtroom Twitter ban will harm reporting’, The Financial Review, January 14^th, p. 1 http://www.afr.com/p/technology/fears_courtroom_twitter_ban_will_bwB30T6TDspFpq8CFbFSD
•  ICACA hearing: Barry O’Farrell denies receiving $3,000 bottle of Grange 2014 [Youtube Clip] ABC News (Australia) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lGdBHZHmVc
• Marsh, I; Meville, G. (2009). Crimes, Justice and the Media, 1^st edi. London: Routledge p. 141-145
• Oscar Pistorius Trial: Tuesday 8^th April 2014, Session 3 [Youtube Clip] SABC Digital News https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMMdyuXfFUg 
• The Guardian (2014), ‘Oscar Pistorious trial can be broadcast live on TV, Court Rules’ [ONLINE] available at http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/feb/25/oscar-pistorius-trial-broadcast-live-tv-south-africa

-