In-Court Media Coverage – a consultation paper

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction [1]

History of in-court media coverage in New Zealand [7]

Brief summary of the existing regime [22]

Relevant principles [35]

Study of the New Zealand Law Commission [39]

2002 survey of barristers [40]

Survey of High Court and District Court Judges, December 2013 [41]

Differing views as to change [54]

Some views in favour of the existing in-court media coverage [55]

Some views against [63]

Options for change [74]

A fixed camera [75]

No photographing of witnesses or defendants [78]

Reduction of protection for witnesses and defendants [81]

A return of the two minute rule, or similar rule [82]

A monitoring body [85]

Court control [86]

A return to the no filming or recording rule [89]

Streamline and improve current processes [90]

Audio recording [92]

The Pistorius case [93]

Filming of young defendants [95]

Other jurisdictions [98]

Submissions [105]

Appendix A:

In-Court Media Coverage Guidelines 2012

Appendix B:

A discussion of developments in some common law jurisdictions

Appendix C

Answers in Judges’ questionnaire

Introduction

[1] This is a consultation paper aimed at eliciting discussion and comment on the

topic of in-court media coverage. The Chief Justice has commissioned a review of

such coverage, aimed at reviewing the guidelines and practices that relate to cameras

and recording in court. The existing approach has developed from a time when very

different technology was employed by both the media and the judiciary, and has been

in operation for 18 years. It was considered timely that there be a full review of the

topic. The goal is to examine:

How the current guidelines are operating;

Whether appropriate safeguards are in place and applied in practice to

ensure the interests of participants and society are met; and

Whether there should be changes to the guidelines.

[2] The scope of the review includes:

The history of in-court media coverage in New Zealand;

The current position;

Assessment of the situation in comparable overseas jurisdictions;

Analysis of the principles that should be taken into account in

considering media coverage in Court; and

Assessment of how the current framework meets the interests of the

public, victims where relevant, the parties and witnesses.

[3] There have been various developments indicating that a review is required:

Since the pilot there has been the advent of a host of technological

developments, which now enable the media to communicate

electronically directly from court to editors or websites, or other forms

of instant communication. These include the development of smart

phones and immediately accessible and changeable websites;

Technology and content convergence is developing between print and

audio-visual media which can be seen as challenging the validity and

application of rules based on bright line distinctions between different

media formats and channels;

The courts face increasing complexity when determining who should

be entitled to report on proceedings, and under what conditions, given

the potential for any person in court with a smart phone to generate

and disseminate multimedia reports and commentary on proceedings;

A body of knowledge and experience has developed over the 18 year

period since the pilot began;

There have been direct criticisms of the existing regime and proposals

for reform; and

The internet and the new media environment bring enormous potential

for more accessible reporting and significant new risks given the fact

that whatever is published digitally is not practically erasable, and is

instantly retrievable and ubiquitous.

[4] A panel has been set up of two High Court Judges and a District Court Judge

to carry out a review, and make recommendations to the Chief Justice and Heads of

Bench. Research and analysis support will also be provided by Judges’ clerks and

the Ministry of Justice. The terms of reference and statement of the procedure to be

followed are on the Courts of New Zealand website.1

[5] The Panel will receive independent advice from Professor John Burrows QC,

formerly of the Law Commission, and Dr Gavin Ellis, a former editor-in-chief of the

1 Accessible at <www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/In-Court-Media-Review>.

New Zealand Herald and Weekend Herald, and former Chair of the New Zealand

Media Freedom Committee.

[6] The first step has been the preparation of this consultation paper, which has

been drafted by the panel. The panel seeks the views of interested parties before

recommendations are made to the Chief Justice and Heads of Bench.

History of in-court media coverage in New Zealand

[7] In 1991, there were no guidelines or other documents that related to the

coverage of court proceedings by the media in New Zealand. Reporters were

allowed to attend court and report on proceedings, generally sitting at press benches

and taking notes in shorthand. Reports were based on what reporters heard and

noted in court. There were no cameras allowed in court and as a matter of general

practice recording in court was not permitted (as distinct from shorthand notes), even

by reporters. It was a recognised aspect of the jurisdiction of a Judge, that the court

had control of its own procedure, including the role that the media would play in

court.

[8] In 1991 the Courts Consultative Committee (CCC), chaired by the then Chief

Justice Sir Thomas Eichelbaum, commenced discussions about the introduction of

expanded television media coverage in courts. The issues ranged from fundamental

questions of principle, such as the nature of a system of open justice, to practical

concerns such as the media frenzy or “scrum” of reporters pursuing participants in

the court proceedings on the street outside the courtroom door. A working party

chaired by Sir Ivor Richardson of the Court of Appeal was set up, which reported to

the Committee. The Committee concluded that the best way forward was to conduct

a pilot, during which expanded media coverage would be permitted under controlled

conditions. The pilot would allow television and radio recording for delayed

broadcasts and documentaries and the taking of still photographs.

[9] The essential argument for allowing cameras in courtrooms was that it gave

the public better access to court proceedings and enhanced the principle of open

justice. It was also argued that showing cases on television had an educative value.

The arguments against televising court proceedings rested on fair trial and privacy

concerns. There were further concerns that television is an entertainment medium,

and in-court coverage would trivialise or sensationalise proceedings. These concerns

were accentuated by events surrounding the OJ Simpson trial in the United States in

1994.

[10] On 10 February 1995 the CCC established a further working party chaired by

Sir Ivor Richardson with a brief to consider the issues and the conduct of the pilot. It

met a number of times between April and November 1995. Sir Ivor Richardson

tabled draft rules and a number of organisations were invited to comment. The

organisations included the Police, the New Zealand Law Society, the New Zealand

Bar Association, the Criminal Bar Association, the New Zealand Council of Victim

Support Groups, the National Collective of Rape Crisis and Related Groups of

Aotearoa, and the three main media organisations which had expressed interest:

Radio New Zealand, Independent Radio News and the Commonwealth Press Union.

[11] There was significant opposition from some members of the media. Two

senior New Zealand editors and columnists, Colin McKay and Pat Booth, deplored

the notion that television coverage of courtroom proceedings could ever be in the

public interest.2 There were concerns about what had happened in the OJ Simpson

trial.

[12] The working party received submissions both orally and in writing. The

media organisations made various suggestions as to how the coverage should work

on a practical basis. The Criminal Bar Association, New Zealand Law Society, Bar

Association, New Zealand Police, New Zealand Council of Victim Support Groups

and the National Collective of Rape Crisis and Related Groups of Aotearoa all

expressed opposition to filming or recording in court.

[13] The working party considered the submissions and concluded that the draft

rules that had been prepared should incorporate amendments requiring print and

radio organisations to maintain archive material during the pilot period, but that

otherwise the draft rules permitting in-court media coverage should continue

unaltered.

2 John Cumming “Opinions Run Hot on Courtroom TV” Northern Law News (1994).

[14] Draft rules were prepared dated 1 October 1994. They included the

following two provisions:

1. Material obtained from expanded media coverage which is broadcast

shall be presented in a way which gives an accurate, impartial and

balanced coverage of the proceedings and of the parties involved. Any

such broadcast is to be without editorial comment and to be of at least

two minutes duration per news item.

2. There shall be no use of material obtained from expanded media

coverage otherwise than for normal news programmes or articles unless

prior approval for that use has been given by the trial judge or, where

that judge is unavailable, another judge of the relevant court.

[15] In March 1996 an independent research team from Massey University was

commissioned by the Department for Courts on behalf of the CCC to evaluate media

coverage. More than 20 cases were covered by the media under the pilot rules

during the initial full three-year period. In its summary of findings, the research

team found that expanded coverage had minimal impact on jurors and witnesses, but

television cameras in courtrooms were seen as a distraction and stressful to judges.

According to the research team’s survey, most counsel claimed they were not

significantly affected. Further, most participants in the survey felt cameras in courts

were educating the public but that this could be improved by more in-depth, longer

and continuous coverage. The media were not satisfied at some of the restrictions

imposed on them, particularly relating to witnesses’ rights to request identity

protection, with the media preferring judicial discretion rather than the issue being

left to the whim of a witness. However, the media were generally of the view that

changes to the guidelines, wider access to the courts, and the types of cases involved

would enhance the appeal of in-court coverage from their perspective.

[16] During the period of the pilot the television broadcasters would provide

coverage of all programmes that featured in-court film coverage. These would be

viewed by an Evaluation Committee, which reported to the CCC. The Chief Justice

and Sir Ivor (then President of the Court of Appeal) together with Paul Norris, a

senior representative of the television media and part of the working group and other

members of the Committee, watched the programmes to monitor general standards,

and compliance with the draft rules. The monitoring revealed general compliance.

[17] Following the conclusion of the pilot and the evaluation by the Massey

research team the CCC made recommendations to the judiciary for a continuation of

coverage that were approved at the Higher Courts Judges’ conference in 1999. In

accordance with the CCC recommendations the rules of the pilot were incorporated,

with some modifications, into new Guidelines, together with a Voluntary Code of

Conduct for the Media.

[18] By 2000 it was being observed that there was “slippage” with application of

the two-minute guideline, as the media increasingly mixed in-court and out-of-court

footage. For their part, media representatives were concerned at the guidelines

preventing them from taking pictures or filming out of court , and felt the guidelines

relating to witness protection needed revisiting. In its review of the guidelines and

their implementation, the CCC produced a consultation paper. The 2003 Guidelines

provided a more detailed formulation of the procedures that were to apply under the

Guidelines, and dispensed with the Voluntary Code of Conduct.

[19] Key features included:

The Guidelines were expressly not to have legislative force or be

construed so as to create expectations.

The period of notification of the court for any media application was

increased from four working days to 10 working days.

Witness protection (which was still available as of right in criminal

trials) was clarified and refined substantially beyond the old B.6 and

B.7 rules.

There was a Schedule of Standard Conditions, in which it was stated

that material could not be broadcast until 10 minutes had lapsed from

recording (it later became known as the “ten minute rule”). It had

previously been one hour.

The “two minute rule” about duration of news items was also

dispensed with in the new edition of the Guidelines.

[20] In 2012 there were further amendments: the particular position of members

of the media in court as distinct from the public was given further emphasis, and it

was noted that only members of the media may take written or electronic notes in

court without leave. Particular changes included:

Electronic communications from court were brought within the

Guidelines.

A definition of “member of the media” was provided, based on the

definition in s 198(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The

organisations to which the media representatives belong must be

subject to the discipline of the Press Council or the Broadcasting

Standard Authority.

The requirement for a 10 minute delay in publication was extended to

electronic communications from court.

There were other more minor changes including extending the

exclusion of the 10 minute rule to Judges’ summing up.

[21] Since the introduction of the pilot there have been no reported mistrials or

aborted trials as a consequence of the introduction of cameras in courts.

Brief summary of the existing regime

[22] Judges have a broad discretion as to the procedures in courtrooms over which

they preside, subject to certain specific provisions such as the various rules of court,

and statutory requirements. For example, s 198 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011

provides that the media cannot be excluded from criminal cases, save where the

matters being heard relate to national security.

[23] Subject to that overriding discretion there are other practices and conventions

that apply. It is the approach of Judges in New Zealand that only members of the

media and other persons with express permission from the Judge may take notes or

use electronic devices in court. This is reflected at page 27 of the Media Guide for

Reporting the Courts and Tribunals.3 There are requirements as to courtroom

courtesy set out in that guide.4 Members of the media must provide suitable

identification,5 so that those who are at the press bench and taking notes and using

devices, are known to the Judge.

[24] If a member of the media wishes to record proceedings in court for broadcast

on radio or television, or wishes to photograph a court in session, there must be an

application to the Registrar of the Court concerned in accordance with the In-Court

Media Coverage Guidelines 2012 (the Guidelines) referred to in Appendix A. A

copy of the application is sent to the other parties, and after submissions have been

received the application is determined by the trial Judge. Decisions are made on the

papers, but there can be a hearing.

[25] Members of the media are allowed to attend in court, even when the court is

sitting in chambers and there are no members of the public present, or when for any

other reason the court is cleared.6

[26] The In-Court Media Coverage Guidelines 2012 apply to all proceedings in

the Court of Appeal, High Court, Employment Court and District Court. There are

separate guidelines applying to the Supreme Court, and a separate protocol for

application of the guidelines to the District Court summary jurisdiction. There are

also Environment Court Media Coverage Guidelines.

[27] As noted above, it is stated that the guidelines do not have legislative force,

do not create rights and should not be construed to create expectations.7 They are

intended to ensure that applications for in-court media coverage are dealt with

3 Ministry of Justice Media Guide for Reporting the Courts and Tribunals (3rd ed, Wellington,

2012). 4 At 26. 5 At 27. 6. Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 198. 7 In-Court Media Coverage Guidelines 2012.

expeditiously and fairly and that so far as possible like cases are treated alike.8 The

Court may have regard to various matters, including the need for a fair trial, the

desirability of open justice, the principle that the media have an important role in the

reporting of trials as the eyes and ears of the public, the importance of fair and

balanced reporting of trials, court obligations to victims, and the interest and

reasonable concerns and perceptions of victims and witnesses.9

[28] The guidelines reiterate that all matters relating to in-court media coverage

are at the discretion of the Court10 and include time limits and procedures for the

making of applications. There are special provisions limiting coverage in sexual

cases.11

[29] There is witness protection as of right in criminal trials. It may be ensured

that the witness is not recognisable and that the witness is not photographed while

giving evidence. There is specific provision for witnesses to apply for a ruling that

the witness not be filmed, photographed or recorded. If there is name suppression in

force or any statutory prohibitions at play, they continue to apply.12 The authority to

film or record may be revoked at any time by the Judge.13 There is a standard

application form in schedule one.

[30] Schedule two of the guidelines sets out standard conditions for film. There is

only one camera to be situated in the courtroom and it must be in a position

approved by the Judge.14 While the Judge is sitting in Court for chambers or in

closed court, no filming may take place.15 No juror may be deliberately filmed and

no publication or broadcast of a juror may be shown.16 Members of the public

attending the trial or review must not be filmed,17 and counsels’ papers must not be

filmed.18 Exhibits are not to be filmed without leave of the Judge, and the accused

8 R 2. 9 R 2.2. 10 R 4.1. 11 R 8. 12 R 13. 13 R 14. 14 Standard Conditions for Film at [1] and [2]. 15 At [4]. 16 At [5]. 17 At [6]. 18 At [7].

may be filmed only when giving evidence or for the first 15 minutes of any sitting

day (and is not to be filmed when the verdict is being taken or a sentencing is

underway). No filming may take place in court when the Judge is not present except

with prior leave of the Judge.19

[31] Film or recordings must not be published or broadcast until at least 10

minutes have elapsed,20 although there are certain exceptions, for instance on a

sentencing or summing up.21 A media applicant must maintain a copy of all

publications or broadcasts,22 and film must not be used while the trial continues

other than in a programme or on the website nominated in the application form.23

[32] The Guidelines provide:24

Film taken must be used having regard to the importance of fair and

balanced reporting of trials, and must not be published or broadcast out of

context.

[33] This rule and many others also apply to still photographs and recording.

[34] The guidelines and media issues have been the subject of ongoing

consideration in the Media and Courts Committee, a committee which meets

regularly, and contains Judges and media representatives.

Relevant principles

[35] There are two dominating principles that must be considered when the issue

of in-court media coverage is considered, both recognised by the New Zealand Bill

of Rights Act 1990. The first is the principle of open justice; the concept that the

fullest access of the public and the media to court proceedings is in the interests of

the community.25 Related to this is the often expressed concept that the media is the

surrogate of the public; its eyes and ears, and that it is through media publications

19 At [10]. 20 At [12]. 21 At [13]. 22 At [14]. 23 At [15]. 24 At [5]. 25 As found in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in s 25(a)’s entitlement for those charged

to a “public hearing”.

that the public has access to and can gain knowledge of what happens in courts. The

right of the media to attend and report on court proceedings is long established and

now recognised by statute.

[36] The second is the right of a defendant to a fair trial, a right identified and

protected by s 25(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. That right dictates

that there must be no potential interference with the fair trial rights of those accused

of crime in New Zealand. For that reason, it is sometimes said that the right to a fair

trial trumps open justice.26 The interaction between the two competing rights was

described by the United States Supreme Court in 1980 as being “as old as the

Republic”.27

[37] In New Zealand in 2014 there are other related and overlapping concepts

relevant to media coverage of court proceedings; that of freedom of information, the

capacity for better coverage of the courts to further the community’s understanding

of their work, the protection of confidentiality, privacy interests (including those of

children, victims and other exposed members of the community), and the orderly and

fair administration of justice. There is also the principle that vulnerable people like

children and victims should be protected from the damaging glare of publicity.

[38] Any guidelines applying to in-court media coverage must be clear and

readable, and easily accessible.

Study of the New Zealand Law Commission

[39] The New Zealand Law Commission investigated the effects of media

publicity on jurors in 1999.28 It was found that few jurors recollected pre-trial

publicity. Although jurors were found to be aware of publicity during trials, none of

the surveyed jurors felt that they had been influenced.29 The Commission did not

recommend any relaxation of current restraints on court reporting, and deemed such

26 R v B [2008] NZCA 130, [2009] 1 NZLR 293 at [62] and [80]. 27 Richmond Newspapers Inc v Virginia (1980) 448 US 555 at 564. 28 Law Commission Juries in Criminal Trials: Part 2: A Summary of the Research Findings

(NZLC PP 37, 1999) vol 2 at [7.46]–[7.57]. 29 At [7.49].

restraints to be in large measure accountable for the absence of prejudicial

publicity.30

2002 survey of barristers

[40] In 2002 there was a survey of 45 Auckland practitioners as to their attitudes

towards courtroom television, undertaken by Paul Murray.31 The practitioners had

personal experience of in-court electronic media coverage. Fifty-one per cent

opposed the presence of cameras in court. The Bar Association had noted that it was

continuing to oppose the new practice. Sixty-four per cent of those polled believed

that televising courts had an adverse effect on courtroom publicity,32 and 68 per cent

did not believe that having television in courts was worthwhile or of benefit.33

However, 89 per cent found that the media had complied with the guidelines and 70

per cent believed that media behaviour had improved with the experience.34 Fifty-

two per cent stated that televising had no impact on the right to a fair trial and 63 per

cent considered that the outcome of cases was not affected.35 Thirty per cent said

that the presence of television made them prepare better, and 52 per cent observed

that they thought it made their colleagues prepare better.36

Survey of High Court and District Court Judges, December 2013

[41] To assist the review in this consultation paper, the panel surveyed High Court

and District Court Judges to collect information on perceptions of audio-visual

coverage in courts. Of the 166 Judges who responded, 129 had presided over

hearings where there had been cameras and television in court. The questions were

answered by those who had experience of media coverage in court.

[42] Thirty-four per cent had never declined applications for media coverage,

while 66 per cent had done so. The reasons for declining applications were varied,

ranging from fair trial concerns to late notice of the application, suppression issues,

30 At [7.49]. 31 Paul Murray Electronic media coverage in courts. 32 At 47. 33 At 44–45. 34 At 48. 35 At 47. 36 At 56.

the impact on victims, sensitivity of witnesses and complainants. Privacy concerns

and worries about “prurient interest” were also listed.

[43] Sixty-seven per cent of Judges did not consider that television coverage

affected the way they acted in court. Those who stated that it did affect the way they

acted in court generally listed fairly minor concerns, such as particular efforts being

made as to the way they spoke and administered court issues. None of the comments

indicated any major change in behaviour.

[44] Seventy-four per cent did not consider that the television coverage affected

the way counsel for the prosecution or plaintiff acted in court, and 71 per cent did

not consider that the coverage affected the way counsel for the defendant acted.

Again when there was a perception that counsel had been influenced by the presence

of television cameras, the behavioural changes noted tended to be of a relatively

minor type, such as counsel being not as relaxed, being better mannered and so on.

[45] In relation to witnesses, 70 per cent did not perceive any effect as a result of

television coverage. Of the 30 per cent who did perceive a change, the changes

listed tend to be of the “more diffident” or looked possibly “more sheepish or

intimidated” type.

[46] Twenty-six per cent of parties or witnesses had opposed being filmed

personally.

[47] Judges were asked what percentage of their time in court was spent on media

issues in a high profile hearing with television in court. The greatest number (44 per

cent) reported that they spent five per cent of their time on such matters. However,

the average estimate for time spent on media issues was two per cent.

[48] In relation to court takers in court the estimate of how much of their time was

spent on media issues was one per cent.

[49] Eighty per cent of Judges considered that media representatives in court

conducted themselves with courtesy and decorum. Of the 20 per cent who did not,

most of the incidents reported related to matters of dress and courtesy, such as

wearing jeans and sloppy clothes, the constant clicking of cameras, and a failure to

abide by directions. There were a significant number of occasions when media

representatives did not understand the need to show courtesy to the court process, or

were rude.

[50] Ninety-three per cent of Judges reported that there had been no instance

where recording in court had resulted in a fair trial issue arising. Seven per cent (a

total of 10) reported that a fair trial issue had arisen as a consequence of televising

proceedings, but none indicated there had been an occasion when a trial had to be

aborted as a consequence. Twelve per cent reported that recording in court had

resulted in them considering disciplining the media. Most often this resulted in some

form of verbal expression of concern by the Judge to the media representative

involved.

[51] Four per cent of Judges had terminated media coverage during a particular

hearing. Seven per cent (10) had received applications to film or record by persons

who were not members of accredited media organisations.

[52] Judges were asked if they had seen coverage of the case over which they

presided and which they did not think was fair and balanced. Of those who gave a

“yes” or “no” response, 33 answered “yes” and 64 answered “no”. The general

complaint was that the coverage was too short, and amounted to “sound bites” only.

However, there was a wide variety of differing views, many of which were positive

in a qualified way.

[53] Relevant answers to this question are set out in Appendix C.

Differing views as to change

[54] The issue of in-court media coverage, and in particular the televising of court

coverage, has produced widely differing reactions and views. There is no exhaustive

or comprehensive catalogue of positions, and it is not possible to fully or accurately

summarise. However, some dominant themes can be isolated, and may pose a useful

reference point for submitters. We emphasise that this is an attempt to summarise

existing different views for discussion and submission purposes, and is not an

expression of views of the panel.

Some views in favour of the existing in-court media coverage

[55] Sue Carty, one of the original members of the Media in Courts monitoring

committee has been quoted as observing that photographers in court were in

principle only an extension of the reporter’s eyes. The vast majority of members of

the public, even though they may be interested in a trial, will not find it practical to

attend. The presentation of filmed or recorded extracts from the trial assist the media

in acting as the surrogate of the public. Bentham expressed the surrogate concept

this way:37

Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the cleanest spur to exertion and the

surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the Judge himself, while

trying, under trial.

[56] Judges have long recognised the significance of hearings being conducted

publicly. Lord Scarman wrote that “justice is done in public so it may be discussed

and criticised in public”.38 The principle is emphasised “so that society may judge

for itself the quality of justice administered in its name, and whether the law requires

modification”.39 Professor Andrews in his book Principles of Civil Procedure40

observed that:

The principle of publicity ought to [be] emblazoned on a banner and

displayed aloft the Royal Courts of Justice.

[57] This statement was made in 1994, when mobile phones were a new

development and the concept of the internet as a news source, smartphones and

social media platforms were unheard of and unthought of. The new Lord Chief

Justice of England and Wales, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, has expressed his view

that the recent legalisation of television in courts in the United Kingdom “will help

assist understanding of the way in which the courts work and enable the public to see

37 Jeremy Bentham Works of Jeremy Bentham: Published under the Superintendence of His

Executor, John Bowring (Tait, Edinburgh, 1843) vol 10 at 142. 38 Home Office v Harman [1982] 1 All ER 532 (HL) at 547. 39 At 547. 40 Neil Andrews Principles of Civil Procedure (1st ed, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 1994) at 23–

24.

the way justice is delivered in an even more open and transparent manner than at

present”.

[58] The view is often expressed that opening up the courts to television cameras

so that the public can understand how courts work and how the sentencing process

works is critical to public confidence in the system, and its effectiveness in assuring

the public that justice is done. Greater accessibility helps to blow away the mystery

that surrounds the courts. Public understanding of the courtroom process, important

in a democracy, can be advanced.

[59] The benefits derived from television in courts can be said to be the

conveyance of information about the justice system, its public scrutiny, checks on

judicial abuse, the perception of citizens that they are participating in the justice

system, and confidence in that system. It could also be said that in relation to

significant trials that concern the community, there is a therapeutic aspect involved

in the public being able to see the process of obtaining justice unfolding on their

television screens.

[60] The view is held by many media representatives that in-court coverage in

New Zealand has been a success. Media organisations co-operate in working

through one camera. There have been no mistrials. They are operating well as

surrogates of the public for the good of the community.

[61] It is also observed in answer to criticisms of sensationalism, that any such

reputation has developed from only a few very high profile trials, and that by and

large there are not “media circuses” and the system works well.

[62] Daniel Stepniak41 in general terms speaks favourably of the New Zealand

experience in his book analysing the position of Commonwealth jurisdictions. He

observed:42

Its strength is that New Zealand has largely accomplished what it set out to

do, in fact court proceedings may now be said to be reported by all forms of

41 Daniel Stepniak Audio-Visual Coverage of Courts (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

2008). 42 At 348.

mass media, courtroom televising and photography has become

commonplace and applications are said to be rarely opposed. … While the

findings of the New Zealand studies and pilot programme evaluation can

hardly be described as conclusive, they are nevertheless reassuring to

overseas courts considering the introduction of such coverage, and have

certainly served to determine and refine the appropriate regulation of media

reporting.

Some views against

[63] The criticism most often expressed is that the recording of courtroom

proceedings, particularly television filming, leads to sound bites that concentrate on

prurient or sensational material. The use of short “bites” of material exacerbates the

tendency to catch attention rather than provide balanced reporting. This, it is said,

does not help the public understand how courts work or blow away mystery, but

rather feeds the public interest in matters which are of a facile and salacious nature.

[64] Helena Kennedy QC, a leading English barrister and a strong opponent of

television in trial courts, states:

Television is constantly looking for new terrain to inhabit, but it seeks the

salacious and the sensational, not the arcane arguments of the highest court.

It wants the sight of a celebrity in the dock. It wants the image of Stuart Hall

being sentenced for sexual offences.

[65] She asserts that the concern is not based on a distrust of journalists, but rather

a distrust of the base commercial imperatives of the owners of media organisations,

who are not concerned about justice for victims or defendants, or the potential

impact on witnesses, jurors and even lawyers and Judges.

[66] A similar view was expressed in the New Zealand Law Journal when the

introduction of the pilot was being debated:43

TV is not merely a neutral eye … The camera is selective … What the

viewer sees is not what he or she would see had they been there … It is the

nature of the TV medium in a technological sense, although it can be and

often is, also affected by the preferences, prejudices and ideological or

political views of the producer. A “televised trial” is like confusing a slice of

ham with a pig, without realising that one is a dead, partial and processed

version of the living other.

43 Editorial Televising Trials [1995] NZLJ 101 at 102 (emphasis in original).

[67] In 2012 the President of the New Zealand Law Society, Jonathan Temm,

delivered a paper to the International Criminal Law Congress critical of the present

coverage of television cameras in the courtroom. He observed that court trials were

meant to remove emotion from the process, but television “introduces emotion

despite all effort to set it aside”. He argued that television’s focus on entertainment

was eroding confidence in the justice system and engaging public odium of the

accused before the verdict. He suggested that the abolition of the defence of

provocation had its genesis in the negative public perception of Clayton Weatherston

as conveyed to the public by in-court television coverage.

[68] It could be said that the “media as proxy for the public” concept is

undermined by the fact that cameras do not in fact behave like the public. They do

not observe a lengthy section of trial. Rather, they focus on sound bites often of only

a few seconds which present a certain person in a certain position with a certain

facial expression or making a particular statement. These can be entirely out of

context and rather than informing members of the public, the coverage can mislead

them. There can be a lack of balance.

[69] There are assertions in the United Kingdom that the New Zealand experience

has shown that the public tend to get involved in unseemly displays as a

consequence of the cameras being present. The last Chief Justice, Lord Judge, has

warned about “cheers” and “boos” at New Zealand sentencings.44 There is no

evidence that the New Zealand public have responded in this way because of the

presence of cameras in court. None of the answers in the Judges’ survey recorded

such an occurrence.

[70] It was said recently by Kathleen Parker in the Washington Post,45

commenting on the George Zimmerman trial in Florida:

The pen may be mightier than the sword – and a picture may be worth a

thousand words – but video cameras alter reality. Their very presence

changes the people and events they seek to capture. And, just to keep those

clichés rolling, although seeing is believing, what we project for others to

44 Nicholas Watt “Television cameras may be allowed to film in crown courts” The Guardian

(1 July 2013, London). 45 Kathleen Parker “Trial TV presents an altered reality” The Washington Post (9 July 2013,

Washington DC).

see is influenced – and reality is altered – by the fact that a camera is

recording that projection. … Although Zimmerman’s jury is sequestered,

the judicial environment is hardly neutral or detached. One way or another,

the medias incessant dissection of every little shred of evidence or testimony

leaks into the courtroom and contaminates the atmosphere. When lawyers

and witnesses hear their own performances critiqued – and evidence is

evaluated by one of the legions of former prosecutor-turned-experts –

suddenly the audience is directing the play.

[71] The point is made by some critics that allowing broadcasters into court does

not provide coverage of the work of the courts. Most court matters are just too dull.

In those that are newsworthy the coverage is often too short and too focused to give

the public much of a view of the work of the courts.

[72] It is also argued that the filming of defendants and witnesses at critical

moments of a trial can be demeaning or humiliating. The presence of cameras in

courts may distract participants from the serious business in hand.

[73] It is also argued that the requirements of controlling the conduct of the media,

deciding applications by the media and the ongoing administrative workload

involved in effectively managing a number of competing commercial organisations

while running a trial, are factors against the existing permissive regime. They use up

court and judicial resources, and distract the Judge from the important and difficult

task of managing the trial, and deciding trial issues as they arise.

Options for change

[74] It may be the submission of many that no change to the existing regime is

required. However, we set out for the purposes of furthering the consultation process

some options for change. These do not purport to be comprehensive, and we accept

may not adequately set out any arguments for or against. Submitters should not feel

confined by the options set out. Some may argue for no change. Interested persons

or bodies may wish to survey their members before reaching a final view and

providing a submission.

A fixed camera

[75] One option is to have one fixed camera in the courtroom which is not

focussed or moved, but covers the whole bench, counsel and witness box area. This

would prevent the use of close-ups and constitute a closer approximation to the view

of a member of the public sitting in the back of the court.

[76] Where this has been tried, for instance in the Leveson inquiry in the United

Kingdom, there have been criticisms. Jim Grice, the English Press Association’s

video editor, is an advocate of four cameras in the courtroom and observed:46

In the Leveson inquiry [where there was only one camera] there was no

sense of geography in the room.

[77] It may be that live screening could discourage media coverage as footage

from a fixed camera would preclude close-ups at dramatic moments, or focus on

particular court participants. There would be less commercial reason to show such

undramatic material. On the other hand, some might argue that this could be a

positive development.

No photographing of witnesses or defendants

[78] The allegedly sensational footage is generally directed at the filming of

witnesses or the defendant. Film of counsel or the Judge seldom provides

sensational interest to the viewing public.

[79] A short way of preventing sensationalism is to have an absolute ban on the

filming of witnesses and the defendant, or alternatively the requirement that if leave

is given to film them that their faces and bodies be pixelated so that only their voices

and their position in the courtroom and the questioner can be filmed. This will stop

the close-ups that might focus on a particular feature or expression. On the other

hand, it might be argued that the media as surrogates of the public should be able to

show such detail. And a prohibition on filming the key parties could lead to the

46 Owen Boycott “Televising of Court of Appeal proceedings starts this week” The Guardian

(30 October 2013, London).

return of “media scrums” around participants in cases of high media interest when

they leave court.

[80] It is to be noted that in the South African trial of The State v Pistorius there is

filming of the court and full audio recording, but no filming of defence witnesses and

no filming of prosecution witnesses if they do not wish to be filmed. Under the New

Zealand guidelines there is no distinction between prosecution and defence

witnesses. The question arises whether a distinction would be desirable.

Reduction of protection for witnesses and defendants

[81] At the present time there are significant restrictions on television coverage of

witnesses in criminal trials. Under para 11 of the In-Court Media Coverage

Guidelines 2012 witness protection is available as of right in a criminal trial for any

witness who seeks it. The question arises as to whether the bar should be lowered,

so that before prohibiting the filming of any witness, the Court had to be satisfied

that various criteria were met. Those criteria could include the demonstration of real

hardship to the witness or third parties.

A return of the two minute rule, or similar rule

[82] It seems that in the first three years of the pilot when the two minute rule and

requirement that both sides be given equal time were in place, there was little

concern about the independence and balance of television footage, and no concerns

of sensationalism. The media did not like these requirements and as soon as the

monitoring stopped in 1999 they ceased to be observed.

[83] Today much of the footage is often very short – sometimes only a few

seconds. There is often no balancing of a question or statement from one side with

the questions or statements on the same issue from the other side.

[84] One response to the criticism would be to bring back a minimum duration of

coverage rule, say of a minute. While it may not be possible to always strictly

provide for equal time for both sides, there could be a re-emphasis of the

requirement for balance, and a monitoring regime set up to ensure that this happens.

Whether balance can ever be fairly achieved may be debated. It may be argued that

it is not practical in the modern commercial environment for broadcasters to devote

such air time to court cases, and that such lengthy footage will turn off viewers.

A monitoring body

[85] A formal body could be set up say of two Judges and one media

representative, akin to that which monitored media footage during the pilot, to

ensure that the rules were followed, and that coverage was measured and balanced,

and to raise matters with the relevant media organisation if this did not happen.

There would be resource issues if such a body was set up. There would also be

issues as to its role. Should it receive complaints? What power to impose sanctions

would it have, if any? The Media and Courts Committee, which has judicial and

media members, meets regularly and considers issues that arise in courts, but it does

not monitor footage.

Court control

[86] It is a theme of Daniel Stepniak’s book Audio-visual Coverage of Courts47

that the Courts should control audio-visual coverage of proceedings to overcome

concerns regarding media coverage and to ensure that the benefits of televising

proceedings will be attained. This would include the courts organising the filming

and making the footage available. There would be rules and possibly customised

directions for each case, setting out what the media can and cannot publish. These

controls could minimise if not eradicate any potential detrimental effects of

publication, and ensure balanced coverage.

[87] There would be resource issues that would arise if this was done. It would

come close to giving trial Judges an impresario role. Judges might not welcome

such a burden. There would be the risk of extensive argument on the appropriate

footage. On the other hand, it could help to ensure balanced coverage.

47 Stepniak, above n 42, at 316.

[88] One possibility is for all court footage to be monitored not by Judges, but by

senior registry staff, and for there to be a joint judicial and media committee to

analyse any issues that are referred to it and prepare reports. But again, there would

be resource issues, and concerns may be raised on the basis of unjustified restraints

on freedom of information.

A return to the no filming or recording rule

[89] This will involve a return to the regime as it was in 1991 with a provision

akin to that of s 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 (UK) which had the effect of

prohibiting television cameras and photography in courtrooms. It must be said that

this is not a view that has been actively promoted by any particular group or

academic over the last 15 years. It was, however, a position very actively promoted

in the 1990s when the introduction of the pilot and the workings of the pilot were

being debated.

Streamline and improve current processes

[90] At present applications for in-court media coverage have to be filed 10

working days before the trial is to start. That 10 working days could be reduced to a

shorter timeframe. The evidence available to us suggests that applications for media

coverage fail on occasions because they are filed too late.

[91] There are no doubt frustrations experienced by all participants in the in-court

media process. There may be ways to improve the present procedures and reduce

pressures. It may be that special procedures should be adopted for particularly high

profile cases.

Audio recording

[92] It may be argued that there should be greater freedom for audio recording

than for recording by film. Is it necessary to have the same safeguards in place when

there are no pictures, or when an audio recording is played over a still image?

The Pistorius case

[93] It is to be noted that in South Africa in the trial of The State v Pistorius, Judge

President Mlambo has held that the media can audio broadcast the full trial, and

televise parts including opening arguments, the testimony of prosecution expert

witnesses, police and assessors, and that of other prosecution witnesses (unless they

object). Defence counsel opposed filming of the trial and the Judge ruled that no

defence witnesses could be filmed. However, closing arguments, judgment and

sentencing can be filmed. When there is no filming of witnesses, there is full audio

recording of their evidence which is broadcast contemporaneously on television with

relevant historical pictures being displayed. It is also a feature of the coverage that

there are fixed cameras in the court, there is a limited ability to display close-ups,

and the cameras are controlled from a room outside the court.

[94] A number of questions arise. Are there going to be difficulties associated

with hearing the full testimony of a witness who is not filmed? Do fixed multiple

cameras assist? Will the lack of cameras and the ban on broadcasting film ease the

pressure on a witness? Is it a good idea to limit close-ups? Should the guidelines be

amended to permit specifically the audio broadcast of evidence while prohibiting its

filming? Should the Courts prohibit the publication of photographs of witnesses

whose identity is not suppressed where the photographs are not taken at the Court?

Can we learn other lessons from the present worldwide media attention placed on the

Pistorius trial and the issues that arise?

Filming of young defendants

There could be specific constraints of filming in relation to young persons who are

appearing in the High Court, and who therefore do not have the protection of

anonymity that exist in Youth Courts for children under the age of 17.48 The issue of

protecting children from publicity has been dealt with specifically by the UN in

48 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s 438.

considering rules for the administration of youth justice.49 The International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), which New Zealand ratified on

28 December 1978, provides at Article 14(4):

4. In the case of juvenile persons, the procedure shall be such as will

take account of their age and desirability of promoting their rehabilitation.

[95] The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) also

addresses the issue. The UNCRC was adopted by the United Nations General

Assembly on 20 November 1989 and ratified by New Zealand on 6 April 1993.

Article 3 requires that in all actions concerning children undertaken by courts of law

“the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration”. Article 40 (1)

provides:

1. States Parties recognise the right of every child alleged as, accused

of, or recognised as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner

consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth,

which reinforces the child’s respect for the human rights and fundamental

freedoms of others and which takes into account the child’s age and the

desirability of promoting the child’s reintegration and the child’s assuming

a constructive role in society.

...

2. To this end, and having regard to the relevant provisions of

international instruments, States Parties shall, in particular, ensure that:

...

(b) every child as or accused of having infringed the penal law has at least

the following guarantees:

...

(vii) To have his or her privacy fully respected at all stages of the

proceedings.

(Emphasis added.)

[96] Under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child a child is any person

under the age of 18.50 There is at present no prohibition in the Guidelines on filming

49 United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (“The

Beijing Rules”), General Assembly resolution 40/33 of 29 November 1985: “8.1 The juvenile's

right to privacy shall be respected at all stages in order to avoid harm being caused to her or him

by undue publicity or by the process of labelling.” 50 Art one.

children. A possible reform would be to prohibit all filming of children under the

age of 18.

Other jurisdictions

[97] There is a wide array of differing approaches to coverage of proceedings

throughout the common law world.

[98] Until recently in the United Kingdom, any coverage by photograph, sketch,

sound or television was prohibited by the Criminal Justice Act 1925 (UK). The

position has recently changed with the passage of the Crimes and Courts Act 2013

(UK). By that Act, the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice can exempt specific

instances of coverage in court from the operation of the Criminal Justice Act. The

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has adopted the House of Lords’ more open

approach to media coverage, and has entered into a deal with British television

broadcasters to allow for live, free streaming of proceedings on the internet.

[99] The Scottish judiciary is also reviewing its approach to in-court media

coverage, and has recently released a consultation paper to that effect. The Scottish

courts have permitted filming in courts since 1992, when Lord Hope issued a notice

allowing filming in courts when consented to by all parties. In 2012 filming without

consent was permitted by Lord President Hamilton, in circumstances where

broadcasters provided an undertaking that the final broadcast would not identify

those who had not consented to filming. It would seem that as a matter of practice

there has been only limited filming of trials.

[100] The Australian Courts also continue to develop their approach to covering

proceedings. With specific exceptions, such as the Federal Court and the Supreme

Court of Victoria, the majority of Australian Courts only allow television coverage

for ceremonial sittings or for stock media footage. The High Court of Australia has

maintained its prohibition, but has recently announced that it will begin posting

audio-visual recordings of all proceedings on its website. Filming is permitted in

special circumstances during proceedings in the Supreme Courts of New South

Wales, Northern Territory, Western Australia and Tasmania, on application to either

the Judge or registrar.

[101] Canadian Courts have also taken divergent approaches. The Supreme Court

and Federal Court of Canada have long permitted television coverage of their

proceedings, dating back to 1994 on Canada’s public broadcast service. There is

also coverage in the Courts of Appeal of a number of the provinces, including

Ontario, Nova Scotia and British Columbia. However, coverage is restricted at first

instance, with the Canadian Judicial Council continuing to oppose any television

coverage of trial courts.

[102] The Federal judiciary in the United States has recently announced the

extension of a trial project to evaluate the effect of cameras in Federal District Court

proceedings. The trial project is the first time since 1946 that the Federal Courts

have permitted coverage in civil cases as a matter of policy. The Supreme Court of

the United States continues its absolute prohibition of any television coverage. At

the state level, approaches vary. California and New York now permit coverage by

their rules of Court, with decisions made by trial judges on a discretionary basis.

[103] A fuller analysis is set out in Appendix B. It can be observed on an overview

that New Zealand has gone considerably further than other jurisdictions in allowing

television coverage of trial courts.

Submissions

[104] Written submissions on the issues raised in this paper are now sought from

interested parties. Only submissions that are signed by an identified submitter and

which provide a working non-electronic address and an email address will be

considered. Once the submissions have been reviewed a decision will be made as to

whether to give the opportunity for the presentation of the submissions by

submitters, and if so the nature of that process.

[105] Submissions must be filed by 1 June 2014. They should be addressed to:

Media Review Panel

c/- Ministry of Justice – National Office

19 Aitken Street

DX SX 10088

WELLINGTON

Email: mediareview@justice.govt.nz

Appendix A

In-Court Media Coverage Guidelines 2012

The in-court media coverage guidelines are available on the Courts of NZ website at:

http://courtsofnz.govt.nz/business/media-centre/media-centre/In-Court-Media-

Coverage-Guidelines-2012-2.pdf

See also the Supreme Court (latest version: September 2004)

http://courtsofnz.govt.nz/business/media-centre/media-centre/Supreme-Court.pdf

and the District Court (summary jurisdiction)

http://courtsofnz.govt.nz/business/media-centre/media-centre/In-Court-Media-

Coverage-Summary-Jurisdiction.pdf

Appendix B

A discussion of developments in some common law jurisdictions.

Table of Contents

United Kingdom England, Wales and Northern Ireland prior to the

Crime and Courts Act 2013 (UK) [1]

England, Wales and Northern Ireland after the

Crime and Courts Act 2013 (UK) [5]

Scotland [9]

Australia Introduction [13]

The High Court of Australia [14]

The Federal Court of Australia [18]

New South Wales Supreme Court [24]

Queensland Supreme Court [27]

Northern Territory Supreme Court [28]

ACT Supreme Court [29]

Western Australia Supreme Court [31]

Victorian Supreme Court [33]

Tasmanian Supreme Court [38]

Canada At the appellate level [39]

At first instance [47]

The United States Introduction [53]

At the federal level [54]

At the state level – California and New York [57]

United Kingdom

England, Wales and Northern Ireland prior to the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (UK)

[1] From 1925 until September 2013, in-court media coverage in England, Wales

and Northern Ireland was prohibited. Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925

(UK) prohibited photography and sketching in courtrooms, and was interpreted to

apply to television cameras.51 Section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (UK)

prohibits all sound recording except where leave has been given by the presiding

judge.

[2] The prohibition was interpreted as not applying to the Appellate Committee

of the House of Lords, on the grounds that the House did not constitute a “court” for

the purposes of the legislation. Speeches from a 1986 case were broadcast live on

the BBC in 1986, and in another 1989 case, BBC television broadcast delivery of

their Lordships’ opinions to a television audience.52

[3] There has been intermittent media coverage of Britain’s highest court ever

since, culminating in the Supreme Court’s current practice of live-streaming all

proceedings on the internet.53 Users are able to access all proceedings on a one

minute delay, which allows streaming to be interrupted should necessary

circumstances arise.54 Broadcast of proceedings is subject to the discretion of the

Law Lords, who reserve the right to withdraw coverage for sensitive appeals. Four

cameras are mounted in each courtroom, and are controlled by in-house engineers

who work under the court’s guidance.55

[4] The Supreme Court also operates a YouTube channel, which uploads

educational videos and selected broadcasts from the live-stream.56 Currently, only

videos of judgments and swearing in of new judges are available. This practice

reflects the unavailability of footage from the live-stream after it is broadcast live.

England, Wales and Northern Ireland after the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (UK)

51 Re St Andrew’s, Heddington [1977] 3 WLR 287 at 289–90; and J Barber & Sons v Lloyds

Underwriters [1987] 1 QB 103 at 105. 52 Stepniak, above n 42, at 21. 53 http://news.sky.com/info/supreme-court 54 For example, broadcasting has previously been denied for cases involving child abduction:

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/05/18/how-supreme-court-live-works 55 http://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jan/30/wikileaks-hearing-supreme-court 56 http://www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

[5] On 11 September 2013, the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (UK) passed through

the House of Commons. Section 32 of that Act provides:

32 Enabling the making, and use, of films and other recordings of

proceedings

(1) The Lord Chancellor may, by order made with the concurrence of the

Lord Chief Justice, provide that a section mentioned in subsection (2) or

any provision of either of those sections—

(a) does not apply in relation to the making of a recording or the

making of a prescribed recording;

(b) does not apply in relation to the making of a recording, or the

making of a prescribed recording, if prescribed conditions are met,

including conditions as to a court or tribunal or any other person

being satisfied as to anything or agreeing;

(c) does not apply in relation to prescribed use of a prescribed

recording.

(2) Those sections are—

(a) section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 (no photography or

drawing in court of persons involved in proceedings, and no

publication of contravening images);

(b) section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (no sound recording

in court without permission, and no public playing of recordings).

(3) In the case of any particular proceedings of a court or tribunal, the court

or tribunal may in the interests of justice or in order that a person is not

unduly prejudiced—

(a) direct that a provision disapplied in relation to the proceedings by

an order under subsection (1) is, despite the order, to apply in

relation to the proceedings, or

(b) direct that a provision disapplied in relation to the proceedings by

an order under subsection (1) is, despite the order, disapplied in

relation to the proceedings only if conditions specified in the

direction are met.

[6] After the passage of the Act, Courts Minister Helen Grant commented that:57

[7] From next month broadcasting will be allowed for criminal and civil cases in

the Court of Appeal, where filming will be allowed of the legal arguments and the

final judgment.

57 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/one-step-closer-to-court-broadcasting

[8] It is the government’s intention that broadcasting will then be extended to

coverage of sentencing remarks in the Crown Court. However, coverage will not be

allowed of victims, jurors or offenders.

Scotland

[9] In Scotland, where the Criminal Justice Act does not apply, judges have

exercised their inherent power to control proceedings to limit media coverage.

However, there has been a steady relaxation of the common law prohibition since

Lord Hope issued a practice note titled “Television in the Courts” on 6 August 1992.

[10] The practice note created a new criterion for consideration of whether

coverage should be permitted: “whether the presence of television cameras in the

court would be without risk to the administration of justice”. Taking that test as a

starting point, the note continued the prohibition of coverage of “current” first

instance proceedings, criminal and civil, but allowed coverage of appellate and

ceremonial proceedings with leave of the presiding judge or judges.

[11] Television coverage of first instance proceedings to be broadcast at a later

date, for the purposes of documentaries or educational programmes, was to be

favourably considered. However, such coverage was subject to the consent of all

parties involved, and to the approval of the judge of the final product prior to it being

televised.

[12] As in England and Wales, the position in Scotland is currently in a state of

review. The Scottish judiciary announced in mid 2012 that it would be conducting a

fundamental review of current policy on the use of television cameras in court.58 For

the period that the review has been in progress, no media requests for access have

been entertained. A consultation process is proceeding.

58 http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/24/944/Review-into-cameras-in-court

Australia

Introduction

[13] Unlike the United Kingdom, Australia has never had statutory prohibitions

targeted at in-court media coverage. As in New Zealand, restrictions on coverage

have been founded on each court’s power to control its proceedings, as well as

general statutory restrictions in the form of contempt of court.59 Also as in New

Zealand, what was an effective prohibition across Australia has now yielded, with

courts in every state now allowing media coverage to some extent. One

commentator has noted:60

However, while a number of Australia courts — in particular the Federal

Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of Victoria — admit cameras on a

regular, albeit ad hoc basis, most Australian courts admit television cameras

very rarely and usually only to permit recording of file and overlay footage

or ceremonial sittings.

The High Court of Australia

[14] The High Court has long held a strict approach to media coverage. Cameras

were barred even from the opening of the High Court’s new Canberra premises in

1980.61 The general approach at the High Court is for cameras, radios, pagers, tape

players, tape recorders, mobile phones and any other electronic equipment to be

surrendered at the door of a sitting court.62 A receipt is provided for any equipment

taken. No audio recordings of proceedings are permitted by anyone other than Court

staff, and transcripts of hearings are available within a day or two of most hearings.

[15] The Court’s website states that “on rare occasions”, the Court will permit

filming of commencement of proceedings but not of any part of the substantive

hearing of an appeal. Media may film the judges approaching the bench, the court

staff in the courtroom, and the lawyers in attendance.

59 Stepniak, above n 42, at 211–220. 60 At 210–211. 61 At 234. 62 http://www.hcourt.gov.au/about/photography-and-recording

[16] It was recently announced that from 1 October 2013, the High Court will

begin posting audio-visual recordings of all proceedings on its website.63 This new

measure has been taken in furtherance of the Court’s goal of improving public access

to its hearings. The Court’s website will create an individual webpage for every

appeal, along with information concerning that case to accompany the audio-visual

recording.

[17] The content of the coverage will be vetted by court staff, with recordings

being posted within a few days of the hearing of the appeal. The recordings will

cover all appeals aside from applications for special leave. The High Court’s new

approach can be described as a combination of the United Kingdom Supreme

Court’s online live-streaming initiative in partnership with SkyTV, and the Canadian

Supreme Court’s partnership with CPAC.

The Federal Court of Australia

[18] Rule 6.11 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 provides:

6.11 Use of communication device or recording device in place where

hearing taking place

…

(2) A person must comply with any directions made by the Court at the

hearing of any proceeding in the Court relating to the use of a

communication device or recording device.

(3) A person must not use a recording device for the purpose of recording

or making a transcript of the evidence or submissions in a hearing in the

Court.

(4) A person must not use a communication device or a recording device

that might:

(a) disturb a hearing in the Court; or

(b) cause any concern to a witness or other participant in the hearing;

or

(c) allow a person who is not present in the Court to receive

information about the proceeding or the hearing to which the

person is not entitled.

63 http://www.hcourt.gov.au/

The Court may have regard to any relevant matter, including the following:

(a) why the person needs to use the device in the hearing;

(b) if an order has been given excluding one or more witnesses from the

Court— whether there is a risk that the device could be used to brief a

witness out of court;

(c) whether the use of the device would disturb the hearing or distract or

cause concern to a witness or other participant in the hearing.

[19] The Federal Court has led Australian courts in allowing media coverage, led

by Chief Justice Michael Black.64 The Federal Court publishes recordings of

judgment summaries on its website.65 The summaries are available for download,

and are accompanied by text versions.

[20] Justice French has described the extent of permission granted to media by the

Federal Court as incremental, beginning with ceremonial proceedings and judges’

entry to the court, to the reading of judgments and summaries.66 A striking example

was found in the April 1998 dispute between the Maritime Union of Australia and

the Patrick Corporation, where judgment was delivered late in the evening and was

broadcast live, interrupting scheduled programming, across all Australian networks

except Channel 10.67

[21] The Federal Court’s approach has not been without controversy. The Court

was strongly criticised for allowing a second camera for reaction shots of the public

gallery in the “stolen generation” case, where the aboriginal applicants were

unsuccessful.68 While no footage was shown of the unsuccessful applicants in the

gallery, suggestions of humiliation and embarrassment led the Court to ban any use

of “reverses” and “cutaway” shots.69

[22] Justice North’s decision to permit filming for the duration of the 2001 Tampa

boat case also faced controversy.70 The Judge permitted sound and visual recording

64 Stepniak, above n 42, at 249. 65 http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/publications/videos 66 http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/courts/speeches/french.htm 67 Stepniak, above n 42, at 253. 68 At 254. 69 At 254. 70 At 256–257.

to occur for the entirety of the proceeding, given what was seen as unprecedented

public interest. Subsequent to the decision, which went against the government,

Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fisher strongly criticised Justice North’s granting of

permission to the media. Mr Fisher described the conduct of the proceedings as

“televised proceedings by stealth, by creep, and that may well be the way of

Hollywood, California, USA, it’s not the Australian way”.71

[23] One commentator has described the continuing success of the Federal Court’s

approach as founded on co-operation:72

The Federal Court has ensured almost problem-free recording of its

proceedings by having television camera coverage closely coordinated and

supervised by the Court’s Director of Public Information. Over time good

working relationships have been established and the Court has been able to

entrust television crews with prior experience and whom it can trust to

record pool footage for other networks.

While the Federal Court has not imposed any rigid conditions on all

recordings, most recordings are permitted on condition that the proceedings

are not disturbed, that no artificial lighting is used, that cameras remain in

fixed positions once proceedings have commenced, and that the Court

retains the right to veto the use of any part or of all footage recorded.

New South Wales Supreme Court

[24] On 16 December 2009, Spigelman CJ issued the New South Wales Supreme

Court’s media recording of court proceedings policy. Media make their applications

via an appointed Public Information Officer, who will then notify the Court.

[25] All recordings:

must not disrupt the proceeding;

must not include any private conversations;

may only be made via one piece of recording equipment;

71 At 257. 72 At 258.

must be shared amongst interested media on a “pooled recording”

basis.

[26] Media who wish to make recordings of any person other than the presiding

judge make application to the court:73

Media representatives wishing to record sound or images of any other person

in the courtroom must first seek the presiding judicial officer’s approval.

Media representatives may send their requests to the Public Information

Officer, who will liaise with the relevant judicial officer. The request must

identify the recording subject’s role in the proceedings (e.g. Crown

Prosecutor, defence counsel, witness) and, wherever possible, his/her name.

It should also explain how the proposed additional sound or vision would

improve the accurate reporting of proceedings.

Queensland Supreme Court

[27] There are no circumstances in which media coverage of in-court proceedings

is permitted in Queensland.74 The Court will permit media to make their own

personal recordings for the purposes of ensuring accurate reporting, but any such

recordings cannot be broadcast.75

Northern Territory Supreme Court

[28] The Northern Territory Supreme Court has issued a comprehensive media

guide, which sets out the restrictions on media activity during proceedings.76 Filming

and photography are prohibited in any court building without permission of the

Chief Justice.77 I have been in touch with the Northern Territory chief media officer,

who has volunteered to collect information about the frequency of media use of the

application system.

73 Spigelman J “Media recording of court proceedings policy” (16 December 2009). 74 Email from David Morgan, Executive Officer for Supreme, Land and District Courts Service,

Queensland (27 September 2013). 75 http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/86420/sc-pd-1of2009.pdf 76 Available at http://www.supremecourt.nt.gov.au/media/documents/Media_Guide.pdf 77 Stepniak, above n 42, at 13.

ACT Supreme Court

[29] The ACT Supreme Court prohibits media representatives from filming or

photographing within any building being used by a court or tribunal, from either

within the building or from outside locations.78 Cameras and other recording devices

are not permitted in the ACT Law Courts Building, Magistrates Court Building or

any other building being used by a Court unless the registrar of the relevant court or

tribunal has consented.

[30] When media wish to to seek approval to use cameras or recording devices,

they are required to contact the registrar of the relevant court or tribunal. Requests to

film proceedings must be made to the registrar as early as possible, and no later than

one week prior to the date of the hearing.

Western Australia Supreme Court

[31] Western Australia was the first state to develop and implement guidelines

dealing specifically with electronic media coverage.79 Coverage is permitted only on

order of the presiding judge, who has absolute discretion to approve or decline

applications. Applications are made through an appointed Public Information

Officer in writing. Applications are conditional on:

Only one video camera being used;

Equipment being silent, without lighting devices, and unobtrusive;

The existing sound system being used;

Camera operators being competent, dressed tidily and only numbering

two; and

Equipment never being left unattended.

78 http://www.courts.act.gov.au/resources/attachments/Media_information_package_July_2013.pdf 79 Stepniak, above n 42, at 238–239.

[32] All coverage is shared among media outlets. No coverage is allowed where

the proceedings are private or involve the trying of an offence of a sexual nature.

Victorian Supreme Court

[33] Filming of proceedings in the Victorian Supreme Court will only be allowed

in “very special circumstances”.80 Media make applications to the Communications

Office, who will then notify the Chief Justice who will consider the application. The

Court operates an Audio and Video section on its website, where sentencings and

proceedings are often recorded and posted online.81

[34] Daniel Stepniak has described there as being a “healthy competition”

between Victorian and Federal Court judges as motivating Australian courts towards

openness for the media.82 Victorian judges now regularly admit television cameras

to record proceedings, and have a high standard of liaising with the media.83 These

developments were driven by the appointment is 1993 of Australia’s first Court

Information Officer.

[35] Developments were stilted by a notorious incident in 1995, when a Victorian

Supreme Court Judge permitted television coverage of his sentencing of convicted

child murderer Nathan Avent. Counsel for Mr Avent opposed the application, on the

grounds that such a broadcast would “single out” Mr Avent, further sensationalise an

already notorious case, as well as aggravate Mr Avent’s already perilous position in

prison.

[36] In ruling in favour of televising the sentencing, the judge cited Sir Ivor

Richardson’s comments concerning the then-recently announced pilot programme in

New Zealand. His Honour applied the rules governing New Zealand’s Pilot Program

of Electronic Media Coverage because “the New Zealand Rules were susceptible of

application by me with relatively minimal modification”.84

80 https://assets.justice.vic.gov.au/scv/resources/52d4064b-f5c1-408b-ad06-

5f62d2bda4fc/media_procedure_policy.pdf 81 http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/home/about+the+court/audio+and+video 82 Stepniak, above n 42, at 260. 83 At 260. 84 At 263.

[37] On appeal, the Court of Appeal for Victoria commented that Mr Avent’s

submission that the judge had been unconsciously influenced by the attention

directed at the case to the media “was not without force”.85 There was widespread

media comment on the Supreme Court’s, most of it negative.86 No further criminal

proceedings were televised in Victoria until 2007.87

Tasmanian Supreme Court

[38] The only proceedings in which media coverage is allowed in Tasmania are

ceremonial sittings, such as elevations of judges to and from the bench.88 The only

carrier who can cover such sittings is the Australian national carrier, ABC, who then

undertakes to provide copies to other networks. No formal applications to the court

are made, with the usual practice being a simple verbal request made on the day.

Canada

At the appellate level

[39] The Canadian experience of in-court media coverage strongly diverges from

that of its Australian, United Kingdom and New Zealand counterparts, given the

Canadian appellate hierarchy’s long history of televising its proceedings. The

Canadian Judicial Council has supported televised appeal proceedings since 2002,

while maintaining its opposition to the televising of first instance proceedings.89 The

Supreme Court has permitted virtually all of its hearings to be broadcast by the

Canadian Parliamentary Affairs Channel (CPAC) since 1995.90 The Federal Court of

Canada has permitted media coverage during a trial period conducted between 1994

and 1998, and the Nova Scotian Court of Appeal since 1995.

[40] The Supreme Court’s media coverage is regulated by the Court’s formal

agreement with CPAC. The Supreme Court retains copyright in the broadcast

material, and has ultimate say in use of the coverage. Only the Court’s own sound

85 At 264. 86 At 265. 87 At 269. 88 Email from Kath Kinsella, Registrar of the Supreme Court of Tasmania (30 September 2013). 89 http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/news_en.asp?selMenu=news_2002_0328_en.asp 90 Stepniak, above n 42, at 151.

facilities can be used for recording, and three permanently installed cameras are used

for visual coverage. The agreement also requires broadcast of proceedings to be

accompanied by explanations of each case and the overall processes and powers of

the Court.

[41] The Federal Court’s approach has been similar to that taken in New Zealand,

with applications made to the Court for coverage to be allowed.91 Media bear the

expense of providing their own equipment and operators, and its published

guidelines prohibit any coverage of the Federal Court’s trial jurisdiction. The

general policy is:

If written notice has been given within a reasonable time, the Court will

generally grant requests to record (audio or video) or photograph judicial

review proceedings for publication or broadcast.

[42] The Nova Scotian Court of Appeal has taken a different approach again. The

Court requires media wishing to cover cases to become part of the formal legal

process itself, requiring radio and TV media applications to become interveners in

the cases they propose to broadcast.92 The guidelines then grant the “media

intervener” the following restricted status:

The applicant for an order permitting coverage shall have standing as a

media intervenor at the chambers hearing, including a telephone chambers

hearing conducted by conference call when approved by the chambers judge,

and all subsequent hearings in which coverage is an issue, and shall be

entitled to notice of all hearings which are subject to the order; the media

intervenor shall have no standing in the appeal or application for any other

purpose.

[43] There is a formal process for applications, with parties having to apply

fourteen days prior to the hearing and including a draft order sought and evidence

that arrangements have been made to pool media coverage. The parties to the case

are entitled to notification that a media application has been made, and can object

within two days of receipt. If there is an objection, a hearing is conducted.

[44] The Ontario Court of Appeal conducted a review of its cameras in court

policy in 2007, with the Attorney-General announcing a pilot programme would take

91 http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/portal/page/portal/fc_cf_en/MediaPolicy 92 http://www.courts.ns.ca/media_access/media_doc/nsca_cameras_rules_1mar03.pdf

place. The pilot programme was constrained by the restriction under s 136 of the

Courts of Justice Act 1990, which prohibits any television coverage in Ontario courts

without the consent of all parties to the case.

[45] The existing technology in the Court was utilised for the programme, which

included live-streaming on the Court’s website. Each of 20 sessions were live-

streamed, and were accessible on the Court’s website for 90 days after the live

broadcast. A DVD copier was installed on site, to allow reporters to request hard

copies of the broadcast.

[46] The pilot was described in a subsequent evaluation document as a success.93

Though media involvement in the programme was limited due to the cases on appeal

at the time not being newsworthy, survey participants noted the programme’s

efficacy in enhancing openness of proceedings and providing valuable education to

the public and students. The evaluation recommended repeal of s 136, though no

change has occurred as of yet.

At first instance

[47] In contrast to its approach to coverage of appellate proceedings, the Canadian

judiciary has continued its opposition to any in-court coverage of first instance

proceedings. Each province maintains its own guidelines for coverage, with

approval of coverage being rare in comparison to in New Zealand. The provinces

not discussed below do not have publicly available media guidelines, but I have

contacted each and will update this memo accordingly.

(a) Alberta

[48] The Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta prohibits any in-court media

coverage other than audio recordings made by reporters, and then only for the

purpose of allowing verification of details, not broadcast. Any recording of the

93 Ministry of the Attorney-General “Final Report for the Cameras in the Ontario Court of Appeal

Pilot Project Evaluation” (May 2008).

likeness of a judge is also prohibited, except at admission or swearing-in

ceremonies.94

(b) British Columbia

[49] The British Columbian Supreme Court prohibits any in-court media coverage

without consent of the parties.95 It further prohibits any coverage of proceedings

involving children, sexual offending, relationship property, trade secrets, or police

informants. No more than one television camera is permitted, and the camera must

be operated by experienced camera-people who are dressed appropriately and have

knowledge of the operation of the court.

[50] British Columbia was the site for what has been described as the most

significant televised first instance proceeding in Canada, when Justice McKinnon

permitted televised broadcast of counsel’s submissions and his jury directions in the

trial of nine Korean sailors for people smuggling.96

(c) Manitoba

[51] Manitoba has adopted a similar system to that in Nova Scotia, with

applications being made by media for the status of “media intervenor”.97 The Court

will only permit access to proceedings when the Supreme Court sits as the province’s

Court of Appeal, or for coverage of the delivery of reasons by the Supreme Court.

Media who apply to cover proceedings must sign an undertaking stating that they

have read and understand the Court’s guidelines. Objections to coverage are heard

in open court, and when applications are granted, any coverage is subject to review

by the Court.

94 http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ZFUtX78mqhk%3d&tabid=431 95 http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme_court/practice_

and_procedure/practice_directions/civil/PD%20-

%2023%20Television%20Coverage%20of%20Court%20Proceedings.pdf 96 At 164. 97 Manitoba Supreme Court “Media Audio Visual Recording in the Courtroom Guidelines”.

(d) Ontario

[52] As noted above, the Ontario Courts of Justice Act prohibits any coverage of

any proceeding without the consent of both parties involved. Accordingly, any

media coverage is subject to that inherent restraint. The Ontario Court of Justice

allows access to the recordings made by the Court’s “Digital Recording Devices”,

where applicants (including media) are required to sign an undertaking agreeing to

comply with the Court’s restrictions.98 The devices only record audio.

[2] Use of any recording is restricted to:

Supplementing or replacing handwritten notes of the court

proceeding;

Enabling applicants to listen to the proceeding because they were

unable to attend;

Preparation in connection with the proceeding for legal proceedings;

or

Access to comply with a court order.

The United States

Introduction

[53] The United States has a long and variable history of media coverage of in-

court proceedings. In 1980, Justice Burger of the Supreme Court described the tussle

between protections afforded to free speech and the free press on one hand, and the

defendant’s right to a fair trial on the other, as being “almost as old as the

Republic”.99

At the federal level

[54] As noted by the Federal Courts’ website:100

Electronic media coverage of criminal proceedings in federal courts has been

expressly prohibited under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 since the

criminal rules were adopted in 1946. Rule 53 states: "[e]xcept as otherwise

98 http://www.ontariocourts.ca/en/forms/Undertaking-Court-Access-DRD.pdf 99 Richmond Newspapers Inc v Virginia (1980) 448 US 555 at 564. 100 http://www.uscourts.gov/Multimedia/Cameras/history.aspx

provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of

photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the

broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.

[55] At its September 2010 session, the Judicial Conference authorized a three-

year pilot project to evaluate the effect of cameras in district court courtrooms, video

recordings of proceedings, and publication of such video recordings.101 The pilot is

limited to civil cases only. The review was initiated after the successful experiences

of the Second and Ninth Circuit’s successful programmes in their respective Courts

of Appeal. The programme has been extended, as of 27 September 2013, until

2014.102

[56] Proceedings may be recorded only with the approval of the presiding judge,

and parties must consent to the recording of each proceeding in a case. Unless the

presiding judge decides not to make the recordings publicly available, they will

subsequently be posted on the federal courts website, as well as on local

participating court websites at the court's discretion. Fourteen courts are

participating in the pilot, which began June 18, 2011.

At the state level — California and New York

(a) California

[57] The ability for courts to permit coverage is found in rule 1.150 of the

California Rules of Court. The rule provides:

Media coverage

Media coverage may be permitted only on written order of the judge as

provided in this subdivision. The judge in his or her discretion may permit,

refuse, limit, or terminate media coverage. This rule does not otherwise

limit or restrict the right of the media to cover and report court proceedings.

(1) Request for order

The media may request an order on Media Request to Photograph, Record,

or Broadcast (form MC-500). The form must be filed at least five court days

before the portion of the proceeding to be covered unless good cause is

101 http://www.uscourts.gov/News/NewsView/10-09-

14/Judiciary_Approves_Pilot_Project_for_Cameras_in_District_Courts.aspx 102 http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2013/09Sept/JCUS.CamerasPilot.pdf

shown. A completed, proposed order on Order on Media Request to Permit

Coverage (form MC-510) must be filed with the request. The judge

assigned to the proceeding must rule on the request. If no judge has been

assigned, the request will be submitted to the judge supervising the calendar

department, and thereafter be ruled on by the judge assigned to the

proceeding. The clerk must promptly notify the parties that a request has

been filed.

[58] The judge is then to consider no less than nineteen factors in making his or

her decision.103 The rule has been in place since 1997, after a task force re-evaluated

California’s approach to in-court media coverage after the OJ Simpson trial.104

[59] A study conducted in 2000 evaluated the efficacy of the rule and its operation

in practice.105 The study revealed 81 per cent of media requests for coverage were

granted, with various counties being more conservative (only 59 per cent of

applications were granted in Fresno) and others almost never restricting access (98

per cent were permitted in San Diego). Coverage of trials only amounted to 12 per

cent of media requests, with the majority pertaining to pre-trial hearings such as

arraignments and pleas.

(b) New York

[60] Audio-visual coverage of New York’s state appellate courts is governed by

s 29.2 of New York's Administrative Rules of the Unified Court System & Uniform

Rules of the Trial Courts. That section provides that two portable videotape

electronic television cameras and two camera operators shall be permitted in any

103 The importance of maintaining public trust and confidence in the judicial system; the

importance of promoting public access to the judicial system; the parties' support of or

opposition to the request; the nature of the case; the privacy rights of all participants in the

proceeding, including witnesses, jurors, and victims; the effect on any minor who is a party,

prospective witness, victim, or other participant in the proceeding; the effect on the parties'

ability to select a fair and unbiased jury; the effect on any ongoing law enforcement activity in

the case; the effect on any unresolved identification issues; the effect on any subsequent

proceedings in the case; the effect of coverage on the willingness of witnesses to cooperate,

including the risk that coverage will engender threats to the health or safety of any witness; the

effect on excluded witnesses who would have access to the televised testimony of prior

witnesses; the scope of the coverage and whether partial coverage might unfairly influence or

distract the jury; the difficulty of jury selection if a mistrial is declared; the security and dignity

of the court; undue administrative or financial burden to the court or participants; the

interference with neighbouring courtrooms; the maintenance of the orderly conduct of the

proceeding; and any other factor the judge deems relevant. 104 Stepniak, above n 42, at 117. 105 Administrative Office of the Courts Cameras in the Courtroom: Report on Rule 980 (May

2000).

proceeding in any appellate court. Audio recording is accomplished through each

court’s existing audio system, and pooling arrangements between media outlets are

compulsory.

[61] Coverage of New York’s trial courts is governed by s 131.1 of the same rules.

Parties are required to serve a notice more than seven days prior to the hearing,

resulting in a “review” being conducted by the presiding judge. The judge must

consult with the applying media outlet, counsel for the parties who bear the

responsibility of polling their clients for their views, and must review all evidence to

be heard in the case. Consent of the parties is not a requirement.

[62] Before denying any coverage, the judge must consider whether some

limitation on use or scope of coverage would better meet his or her concerns.

Interestingly, the rules provide that a judge is to conduct a review of any existing

media arrangements on application by any person involved in the conduct of the

case, including parties, victims, or prospective witnesses.

[63] Applications to both trial and appellate courts are made in accordance with a

set form.106

106 http://nycourts.gov/press/audiovisual.pdf

Appendix C

Answers in Judges' questionnaire.

If you have seen coverage of the case you presided over on television, do you think it was

fair and balanced?

How:

(My experience has only been with sentencings) The media are not usually interested in

fairness and balance, just selling a story or adding a short film clip to a voice-over article.

Two were sentencing matters and the result was reported adequately.

Although the tendencies for sound bites do not always set out the judge's reasoning very

precisely.

Always 'sound bites' with no continuity or relativity one to another. No logical or accurate

sequence, giving an overall false impression.

As far as possible given brevity of the report.

As much as a sound bite can be.

Because it only gives sound bites.

Answer Choices Responses Percentage of Total Responses

N/A 50 34%

YES 64 44%

NO 33 22%

147 ← Total Responses

50

64

33

N/A

YES

NO

By its nature TV presents just a newsworthy snap shot. Its brevity precludes balance

Coverage limited so difficult to assess. Generally coverage has been fair and balanced.

Coverage of sentencing is fraught. It is a complicated process and the two second soundbite

shown on TV is out of context and fails to show the true message.

Fair balance of the issues in relation to the sentencing.

Far too superficial - "sound bites" only.

Generally speaking, coverage is only of any sensational aspects of a trial, aimed at prurient

interest rather than general public interest. It seldom gives a fair and balanced picture.

Generally yes. I don't like moving to a standard shot of accused when appearing to react to a

particular piece of evidence - that can be misleading to the public. Better standards needed to

control visual media on this question. Need to make clear line between reporting and

entertainment (ratings) where former should take precedence in Court coverage.

Hard to deal with the issue fairly over a number of days, but they try hard and largely succeed.

How can it be fair and balanced when it occupies perhaps 30 seconds of air time? On

sentencing it is mostly voice over with the journo's impressions and then a segue to the

anguished/angry victims.

I have had still cameras about 5 times; television cameras twice, at sentencings only. The

coverage was fair in both cases.

Inaccurate - generally. If fair or balanced it seems to be random due I imagine to the lack of

expertise in the person who puts the footage/ item together.

It is virtually impossible for television to provide balanced reporting of a case. An angle is

inevitable.

Mostly yes but sometimes not balanced. Have found that the defendant is less likely to be

pursued or harassed by media if they are able to film in Court.

No two-minute soundbite could give fair and balanced coverage, but I have not heard of any

complaint that a televised report using footage from the trial was unfair or distorted.

Not long enough to be really balanced. but never too bad.

Not really high profile cases, more of local interest, so the fairness issue has not arisen has the

coverage has not been that intense.

Nothing wrong with what has been presented, though is always no more than a snap shot, and I

do not have direct experience of a very high profile case with daily etc television coverage.

Often edited in a way that does not accurately record the issues and what was said by the

parties. Not possible to reduce what is almost always complex material and issues into short

television sound bite.

On both occasions the media coverage has been limited to a brief report of the proceedings,

basically just showing the members of the Court or Board of Enquiry coming onto the bench

as background to commentary.

On occasion, "snippets" give a wrong impression, but perhaps the length of reports make that

inevitable.

On the whole it was although a little more content would have explained the case more clearly.

I think that the rule about length of coverage should be re-instituted.

Only a pot-shot of a great deal of evidence.

Only for sentencing matters and the clips are usually very short.

Overall I think television tries to be balanced.

Rarely are news stories balanced. Accurate perhaps but not balanced.

Really all rather superficial.

Selective sensationalised disinterested in giving any understanding of trial issues.

Showing both sides and giving a sound bite to each side.

The footage may not have been balanced in itself, but the commentary before and after

provided a reasonable overview.

The in court media coverage tended to be too short to give a meaningful insight into what was

happening. Rather the purpose of the shots was to show a face or a particular reaction.

However, I have not seen any grossly unfair in court coverage. What can be unfair

sometimes is the way in which the media focus of the victims' reactions to Court orders,

particularly sentences that displease them. They are pressed by the media as to whether they

are happy with the result, and predictably if it is not harsh on the defendant will express their

bitterness. This can be the only significant image of the coverage, and there is no reporting of

the judge's reasons for the decision, and no balance to the report. But this is more of an out of

Court reporting issue.

The in-court coverage has been brief and only able to be balanced by the content of the item as

a whole.

The items shown are only a snap shot of the most newsworthy part of the case from the

media's point of view rather than balanced reporting. At times shots of the defendant are

shown out of context, ie not live time.

The lack of detail was such that the reporting was simply inaccurate.

The media does not always try to give a detailed report of a case. They often only stay for the

bits that they think are newsworthy. It is therefore difficult for reporters to give a truly fair and

balanced coverage.

The media if it is a case of interest, often have an angel they want to run with and this.

The reporting was factual, the hype about the case had been before.

The sentencing report on TV was reasonably balanced and fairly reflected what the case was

about.

The short sound/ visual bites can never give a balanced coverage.

They only use what they consider to be newsworthy. This never ensures that the public gets a

balanced view of the proceedings. The best chance of this is via the old tried & true method.

The newspaper court reporter.

Too selective and sensational to be fair and balanced.

Two sentencing were accurately covered.

Usually it has been fair but I have been sometimes disappointed after in-court image coverage

has been allowed and completed that there has been a media scrum on the street following a

defendant and/or family in the intrusive and sensationalised way that in-court coverage was, I

thought, supposed to have replaced.

Usually sentencing matters only for me. Media spend more time with victims outside

Court.........