As the trial of Oscar Pistorius winds down, it will inevitably lead to a short and inconclusive debate about whether courts should be broadcast here. On one side will be those who will point to the circus-like quality of the trial being demeaning, while others will highlight the constitutional obligation for justice being seen to be done.
The Irish legal world has tended to be rather minimalist in its interpretation of open justice. The door of the court is open and the public and journalists are allowed in, but rather grudgingly. In some courts it is still nearly impossible to even hear the proceedings, as judges and barristers mumble to each other, with microphones pushed to one side. Accounts of major trials are delivered by reporters doing pieces to camera, shouting over the noise of traffic outside courts, while delivering something that sounds like a newspaper report being read out.
Televised trials are not new and even arguing for television access already seems quaint given the technological changes. The first trial to be televised was that of Adolf Eichmann in 1961, the year RTÉ was established. Since then we have seen the trials of the serial killer Ted Bundy; the rape trial of William Kennedy Smith in 1991; OJ Simpson in 1995; that of music producer Phil Spector, and many more. Speaking of later technologies, journalists in Ireland can tweet from court, but there are some issues that might be subject to discussion, such as what happens if someone tweets a piece of evidence that is later disallowed?
Twenty years ago the Law Reform Commission, in a report on contempt of court, said the argument in favour of allowing television cameras was sufficiently strong “to sustain a recommendation that an advisory committee be established to review the arrangements for, and legal provisions relating to, the recording and broadcasting of court proceedings by the media”. And that was the end of that.
Judges will probably say they have no problems with cameras but add that the Pistorius and Simpson trials were simply about entertainment. They might also suggest there is no demand for it, that they have not been convinced, and they are sceptical about the educational benefits.
One of the great mantras of journalism is never allow the important to appear boring. If the administration of justice is one of the central planks of democracy then not only should journalists be allowed to cover it the way they cover other important events, with recorders, smart phones, cameras and even note books, but the same journalists have a duty to make it lively, sensational (in the best meaning of the word) and exciting, otherwise no one will engage with the justice system.
Judges do place restrictions on coverage in the interests of justice and they will continue to do so. Even in the Pistorius trial there were limits on what could be televised.
But by encouraging a notion that serious coverage takes place only in newspapers, the judicial system is being elitist and is generally discouraging media coverage.
Coverage does not have to be entertainment, though what’s wrong with that? But for television and radio reporters to cover a case they need actual footage or audio of judges giving judgments, of barristers asking questions, and evidence being given, not necessarily as blanket coverage, but as quotes to better explain what is happening, to produce packages that engage with dramatic stories, so the public knows what is taking place in our courts.
Dr Michael Foley lectures in journalism at the Dublin Institute of Technology.