Trial courts to decide on cameras
THE SUPREME Court of Appeal (SCA) has ruled against a judgment of the Western Cape High Court allowing media to cover trials and take photographs before trial and during adjournments.
The appeal was lodged by the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), in connection with the case against murder-accused Henri van Breda, in his battle to prohibit Media24 from livestreaming his trial.
The SCA ruled that a request to broadcast a criminal trial should be decided by the trial court on a case-by-case basis after a proper application has been brought before it.
The SCA also ordered Media24 to pay Van Breda’s costs.
In April, Western Cape High Court Judge Siraj Desai refused the State and Van Breda leave to appeal his decision allowing Media24 permission to livestream the trial.
Desai dismissed an application for leave to appeal brought by Van Breda’s legal counsel and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).
The 22-year-old Stellenbosch man is accused of murdering his father, mother and older brother at their De Zalze Estate home in January 2015. His sister Marli survived the attack.
Van Breda’s counsel argued that be fair; the interests of the media and the public in maintaining freedom of the press and in ensuring open justice; the interests of participants in the trial process; and the interests of the court and the public in maintaining the dignity and decorum in the administration of justice.
“The goal has to be to achieve a balance of these competing interests.”
He added that it would always remain open to a trial court to direct that some or all of the proceedings before it may not be broadcast at all or may only be broadcast in (for example) audio form.
“It shall be for the media to request access from the presiding judge on a case-by-case basis. In that regard it is undesirable for this court to lay down any rigid rules as to how such requests should be considered. It shall be for the trial court to exercise a proper discretion having regard to the circumstances of each case,” Ponnan stated
“Whenever an accused person in a criminal trial objects to the presence of cameras in the courtroom, the objection should be carefully considered.
“By framing the inquiry in these terms, courts will be better able to strike a constitutionally appropriate balance between policies favouring public access to legal proceedings and the accused’s right to a fair trial.”
He added that courts would not restrict the nature and scope of the broadcast unless the prejudice was demonstrable and there was a real risk that such prejudice will occur. “Mere conjecture or speculation that prejudice might occur ought not to be enough.
The Department of Justice and Correctional Services has welcomed the “balancing act demonstrated by the SCA in terms of a right to fair trial versus media freedom and the right to know, as well as the jurisprudence it sought to establish through this judgment”.
“The appeal by the NPA sought to protect witnesses testifying in criminal matters so that they give evidence in a manner free from of the scrutiny that may be caused by a live broadcast of their testimony,” department spokesperson, Mthunzi Mhaga, stated.
“The courts are duty bound to consider each application carefully by upholding the decorum of the court and ensuring fair administration of justice.
“Significantly, the court ruled that careful consideration must be given to the objection of an accused to the presence of cameras in the courtroom, striking a constitutionally appropriate balance between policies favouring public access to court proceedings and the accused’s right to a fair trial and ensuring that such fair trial rights are not prejudiced.