Use of courtroom camera ‘encouraging,’ law prof says
In what is believed to be a first for the province, a television camera was used to film a proceeding in a Saskatchewan courtroom on Monday.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in Regina allowed a media pool camera — the footage is shared by newsrooms and not broadcast live — to film the arguments presented by lawyers at the Douglas Hales murder conviction appeal, as well as the judges’ decision (the appeal was dismissed).
This was a one-time offer, but the province’s court system is considering making this a permanent media policy for the Court of Appeal. Unlike criminal trials, appeal hearings rarely feature witnesses or new evidence. The Saskatoon StarPhoenix interviewed three experts about the implications of cameras in court and whether the policy should be expanded to trials.
Brent Cotter, University of Saskatchewan College of Law professor and former Saskatchewan deputy attorney general:
“It’s an encouraging development. To be able to inform people about what’s happening in courts I think has the ability to provide greater public confidence in how these decisions are made and it provides more transparency. Provided proper rules are put in place so it’s not all about a sensational moment, it’s positive. A lot of law is a mystery to the average citizen. ... The kind of information that judges are considering is in nearly all cases public, and this just expands the way in which the public can see and hear it. To me, that’s a good thing for our system.
“A wide range of privacy concerns I think can arise (if cameras were allowed in trials). There’s much more personal information introduced. There’s also the possibility that trials can be a bit more theatrical. One doesn’t want a situation to develop where people are playing to the cameras. Trials carry more drama and people have to think through those questions with a bit more care. Courts of appeal tend to not have that dramatic atmosphere. It’s only rare cases where evidence is provided in courts of appeal — usually they’re just reviewing trial evidence.”
Pat Bell, retired University of Regina journalism professor:
“There’s an added responsibility for journalists covering court. Already when we’re in court we have the obligation to report to the public what is most cogent and the essence of the day. With the addition of cameras we have the added responsibility of choosing what footage is used and we have to carefully think about that. We have to ask why we would choose particular footage or images. ... An accused’s right to a fair trial mustn’t be diminished in any way. The shots need to be kept in context, as all good journalism does.”
Andrew Mason, Saskatoon criminal defence lawyer:
“There are many cases where issues of law are of public importance and I don’t think cameras will influence or be perceived to influence the court’s opinion on those issues of law. They will be decided on what the law says. The Supreme Court has opened itself to cameras and I think it’s a positive development.
“When it comes to sensitive facts, the courts may be reluctant to engage in a frank discussion or the appearance may be the court is reluctant to engage. There are very delicate facts in murder cases and sexual assault cases. It’s always a public forum, but to see it live streamed, there many be a reluctance to ask questions that may be taken in a 10-second sound bite that will be taken as something else than it is.”
The Supreme Court has opened itself to cameras and I think it’s a positive development.