Recent events and controversies had said so much in relation to the relationship between the courts, the media and the public in the Australian society. The most prevalent issue at the moment is media’s role in reporting court proceedings, whether it is appropriate to implement cameras in courtrooms.
Main argument in favor of such action is to ensure that the judicial process would be more transparent to the general public. Stepniak (week 8 readings) advises that our main focus should shift from whether the media be permitted to record and broadcast proceedings, to the consequences of courts being proactive in facilitating public access to any court-proceeding related matters. Based on the researches and experiences gathered, Stepniak argued that it is reasonless to doubt how media would be a useful tool to enhance public access to and understanding of the judicial process.
“Justice is done in public so tht it may be discussed and criticized in public…”
- Lord Scarman
The principle of open justice will imply the involvement of public scrutiny, with the balancing of the interests of a fair trial as the underlined principles.
Currently in Australia, Federal Court judges gave cameras to record their delivery of judgment summaries on a regular basis. In conducting the recording and broadcast of the insightful three part series titled ‘Divorce Stories’, broadcasters involved were exempted from liability granted by the Court.
However, some argued the media should not be accountable for publishing or broadcasting courts’ services, although it has a significant role in informing and scrutinizing court decisions of the general public interest. Such viewpoint can be further support given by the complexity of monitoring the media to adequately and correctly on distributing any court-related information. As stated by Alastair Nicholson, former Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, “…the Australian media has an unimpressive track record in protecting the rights or privacy of individuals.”
Moreover, court records often contain personal privacy information, which would be too sensitive for any public recording and/or broadcasting. Public exposure on court proceedings might enhance public awareness of courts’ functions and the judicial power, but who should be accountable for in any leakages of personal privacy?
Hi Zoey,
ReplyDeleteGood blog! I found it really interesting as I did a post on the same topic, and you brought some interesting points up that I hadn't thought about!
Stepniak's readings were very helpful to me also. “Justice is done in public so tht it may be discussed and criticized in public…”- what a great quote, it really sums up the argument.
A great point you brought up in your last couple of paragraphs is that court proceedings contain a good deal of personal privacy information; in both my research and the literature you seemed to cover, it would appear that not much has been done to address this matter.
You might want to check out the article recent posted by online paper Crikey titled 'Under oath the camera doesn't lie'; they examine how broadcasting court proceedings may be used to explain judge's decisions, and therefore stop the media from slandering judge's decisions.
In all, great post on a topic that is just exploding- will be one to keep an eye on!
There is pros and cons in every action. What can we do is to weight the relative cost and benefit. To name a few...
ReplyDeletePros:
(1) transparency in the judicial system
(2) help open justice to the scrutiny of all
(3) ensuring a free trial
(4) building public confidence in the legal system
Cons:
(1) might became a media-created circus
(2) reduce justice to mere entertainment, but not proper knowledge of information about the court
(3) raising security concerns as judges will lose a degree of anonymity (privacy, as you have noted)