IN JUST over a week’s time the trial of Oscar Pistorius for the alleged murder of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, will begin at the high court in Pretoria.
It is a trial that is set to grip not only the nation but international audiences as well, given the high profile of Mr Pistorius. This was already evident at the bail hearings, when the court was swamped by local and international media as well as the public.
So it isn’t surprising that three broadcast companies, eNCA, MultiChoice and Eyewitness News, have applied to the court to broadcast the proceedings live.
Technically, the case is open to anyone who wants to attend. It is the underlying principle of the justice system that justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done. That is why the courts are open to anyone. Only in exceptional cases are they closed to the public.
The problem is that not everyone can attend Mr Pistorius’s trial because of physical constraints. Seats in the court are limited. To overcome this problem, the media has opted for a lottery system to see who can attend.
The losers will be housed in an overflow court and will watch proceedings on closed-circuit television. So you could say that the trial is already being broadcast and the latest application is merely an extension to a broader audience who can’t make it to the courtroom.
But broadcasting the trial live would be a precedent. Previously the Constitutional Court has ruled that it is at the presiding officer’s discretion whether to allow proceedings to be broadcast.
Of course, Mr Pistorius’s right to a fair trial needs to be balanced against the public’s interest in his trial. His defence team has raised concerns as to whether potential witnesses might be intimidated by the presence of the broadcast media in the courtroom.
The broadcast houses, to allay that fear, have given an undertaking to be discreet and not broadcast any part of the proceedings where a witness does not assent to have their testimony broadcast.
In today’s age of social media and almost instant news, the proceedings are going to be distributed virtually live anyway. It’s hard to see what difference it would make if this were by television rather than on Twitter, as long as it is unobtrusive and in no way affects the court’s process and Mr Pistorius’s rights.
Oscar Pistorius in the Pretoria Magistrate's Court in February last year. Picture: SUNDAY TIMES
IN JUST over a week’s time the trial of Oscar Pistorius for the alleged murder of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, will begin at the high court in Pretoria.
It is a trial that is set to grip not only the nation but international audiences as well, given the high profile of Mr Pistorius. This was already evident at the bail hearings, when the court was swamped by local and international media as well as the public.
So it isn’t surprising that three broadcast companies, eNCA, MultiChoice and Eyewitness News, have applied to the court to broadcast the proceedings live.
Technically, the case is open to anyone who wants to attend. It is the underlying principle of the justice system that justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done. That is why the courts are open to anyone. Only in exceptional cases are they closed to the public.
The problem is that not everyone can attend Mr Pistorius’s trial because of physical constraints. Seats in the court are limited. To overcome this problem, the media has opted for a lottery system to see who can attend.
The losers will be housed in an overflow court and will watch proceedings on closed-circuit television. So you could say that the trial is already being broadcast and the latest application is merely an extension to a broader audience who can’t make it to the courtroom.
But broadcasting the trial live would be a precedent. Previously the Constitutional Court has ruled that it is at the presiding officer’s discretion whether to allow proceedings to be broadcast.
Of course, Mr Pistorius’s right to a fair trial needs to be balanced against the public’s interest in his trial. His defence team has raised concerns as to whether potential witnesses might be intimidated by the presence of the broadcast media in the courtroom.
The broadcast houses, to allay that fear, have given an undertaking to be discreet and not broadcast any part of the proceedings where a witness does not assent to have their testimony broadcast.
In today’s age of social media and almost instant news, the proceedings are going to be distributed virtually live anyway. It’s hard to see what difference it would make if this were by television rather than on Twitter, as long as it is unobtrusive and in no way affects the court’s process and Mr Pistorius’s rights.
Post a comment