Media’s role in court

ACTING judge Laura Wawun-Kuvi is absolutely right.
This newspaper, and the media in general, carry out an important role in the workings of the justice system.
And they should be allowed to do that with no interference at all from prosecutors,accused people and/or their family members, police and those with vested interest in the case.
That role by the media is based on the principle of open justice, derived from the British courts (Scott vs Scott 1913) and reinforced by the United Nations (Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.)
The principle is that the justice system benefits when publicity is given to court proceedings.
That is the bottom line.
The media support open justice, and in turn the justice system, by reporting what happens in the courts for the sake of the people.
We carry out that task to the best of ability, unless for some reason, the court issues a suppression order such as in juvenile cases.
Acting judge Laura yesterday rightly pointed out to a State prosecutor, who was concerned about this newspaper’s coverage of Monday’s proceedings of a high-profile murder case in
the National Court, that she would not intervene on the right of this newspaper and others to report on what transpired in court.
She told the prosecutor: “You are asking the court to intervene on a right to a freedom expressed in the Constitution.
“You are asking me to talk to the media, but on what basis?
“You are raising the concern in the wrong bar.”
Under the principle of open justice, the judicial process should be transparent and open to public examination.
People should be allowed to sit in court, and by extension, reporters too who are seen as representing the general citizenry, who cannot actually be present to witness the workings of justice in court.
By reporting on consequences of bad behaviour, the media,on behalf of the court, send a strong message to society that such behaviour is unacceptable.
At the same time, our coverage of the courts also serve to demonstrate that those who are falsely charged will be acquitted through the effective workings of our justice system.
Therefore, those who try to stop the media from covering court cases do not fully understand our role in the workings of the justice system.
In the words of one Jeremy Bentham almost two centuries ago, “when there is no publicity, there is no justice (as) publicity is the very sole of justice”.
It has also been generally accepted in the justice systems of democratic nations that the principle of open justice
also requires that nothing should be done to discourage the making of fair and accurate reports of what occurs in the courtroom (Justice McHugh, 1986).
The open justice principle has been followed by the courts, unless someone can convince a magistrate or judge that justice can only be done by excluding from the hearing members of the public, and by extension the media.
Then it is entirely up to the magistrate or judge to make a ruling on that.
Of course, we also report cases in court because of their newsworthiness.
And of course, we get a few things wrong at times when reporters misspell names or write down the wrong charges.
It happens.
But we try to fulfil our role of informing the public as accurately, fairly and best we can.
Acting judge Laura yesterday corrected the view that some may hold of the media’s true role in the courtroom.
The State prosecutor erred yesterday, and did apologise for it.