“Whenever an accused person in a criminal trial objects to the presence of cameras in the courtroom, the objection should be carefully considered.”

broadcasting the trial would jeopardise their client’s right to a fair hearing.

The NPA argued that some witnesses had indicated that they would not want to be subjected to live cameras in the courtroom, which might inhibit their testimony.

In his ruling, Judge Desai commended Hilton Epstein SC, appearing for the State, for meticulously highlighting the possible adverse effects of the trial being broadcast, especially the testimony of a particular witness.

“He does not, and cannot, say that it would occur in this instance. There is no evidence to support this,” wrote Judge Desai.

Francois van Zyl, appearing for Van Breda, also argued that the presence of live cameras inside the court could affect witnesses on the stand.

But in his reasons, the judge wrote: “It seems to me that in the modern era of rapidly increasing methods of mass communication, to decline this order would be inconsistent with the current and, certainly, future reality.”

This week, however, the Supreme Court of Appeal ordered Judge Desai to reconsider his ruling that the trial can be televised.

SCA Judge Visvanathan Ponnan said judges needed to take a witness-by-witness approach when deciding what could be broadcast and criticised the NDPP’s “onesize-fits” opposition to any type of broadcast.

He pointed out that a number of interests were at stake including the interests of the NDPP, the appellant and the public in holding a trial that is fair and is seen to