A short note on cameras in the courtrooms Deepti Sinha

Justice may be being done, it is not necessarily being seen to be done and justice must be seen to be believed.[1]

The biggest challenge that is faced by proponents of allowing camera trials in courtrooms is the fact that with cameras in courts, it is an increasingly difficult task to ensure a proper balance between the rights of the accused and fair trial. Testimony to this fact is the trials of Michael Jackson and O J Simpson in USA. Cameras were allowed in these trials and it only became a media-created circus. It is highly detrimental if a legal system is allowed to become entertainment for the public. It beats the defence of making the public well informed by broadcasting trials. According to a US judge, I think theres something sick about making entertainment out of real peoples legal problems.[2] Referring to the televised trials of Michael Jackson and O.J.Simpson Justice Michael Kirby observed:

These are the ingredients of entertainment, not really news or information. The legal process in an actual trial is reduced to glitz, glamour and spectacle. The accused is offered up upon a global altar, as the star of this week''s soap opera. The O J Simpson trial was an even bigger phenomenon in this genre. The judiciary which becomes caught up in such entertainment, by the public televising of its process, will struggle (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) to maintain the dignity and justice that is the accused''s due. But these are not the media''s concerns. Jurists should be in no doubt that the media''s concerns are entertainment, money-making and, ultimately, the assertion of the media''s power.[3]

On the other hand, several hold the view that cameras in the court rooms would prove to be beneficial as it would allow transparency in the judicial system and would help open justice to the scrutiny of all. The most obvious of the advantages is that a free and fair trial would include the aspect of public knowledge within it. For the most part, television remains the closest medium of making the public a part of criminal trial - practically speaking. Furthermore, the fourth estate of democracy needs to be free and it should be allowed to gather and disseminate information. Secondly, televising trials will ensure another layer of protection to the fairness of it. If the judges and the lawyers know that the whole world has access to the proceedings, then it will ensure that the trials are being conducted in a free and fair manner. According to a report in United Kingdom, almost 96% of all criminal cases are completed in the magistrates courts.[4] Letting the cameras into these courts would seem to be the way to inform the public about the way the system works. Again most cases do not go to trial but the public would still see how cases are heard and sentences passed down. Moreover, when we can have the proceedings of Parliament televised then why we cant have a similar channel for justice.

In the year 2004, the government in UK launched a consultation paper to discuss the pros and cons of introducing cameras in English and Welsh courtrooms. Some lawyers welcomed the plans to allow television cameras into English and Welsh courts on the ground that the opening up of court proceedings will play an important role in building public confidence in the legal system. Some judges also agreed that televising trials could increase the public understanding of the judicial system.[5] Televising criminal proceedings was also favoured on the ground that filming trials for archiving and educational purposes can be significant in appeal cases and for research purposes.

However, while supporting the fact of televising criminal proceedings it should not be forgotten that televising criminal trials is quite different from televising public inquiries. There are currently no legal bars to bringing cameras into an inquiry, and the stubbornness of some judges not withstanding, there is a growing awareness that the fears that the presence of cameras in courts would sway witnesses, have proved unfounded. Even then, a criminal trial where someones liberty is at stake is very different from a public inquiry.

First of all there are concerns about privacy. People giving witness in criminal trials would not feel free and would have fear in their minds if the criminal proceeding were televised. The judicial system in India is already facing flak for not providing enough security to witnesses who, due to various reasons, turn hostile, leading to acquittals of many accused. This has happened in several high profile cases like Jessica Lal, Priyadarshini Mattoo and the Best Bakery trial.

Another major deterrent in making trials public is the fact that judges will lose a degree of anonymity, raising security concerns. The whole world will become privy to their identity, which can hamper a fair trial. In recent years, we have already witnessed judges coming under a lot of pressure in certain high profile cases. This situation will only be aggravated if cameras are to be allowed inside courts. It may lead to judges being uncomfortable while hearing a case and in extreme cases even lead to withdrawing from them. It has already been rumoured in leading Indian newspapers like The Times of India in Jessica Lal case that the judge in the lower court was influenced by the political clout of the accused, although nothing could be conclusively proved. Furthermore, it is not only the judges security that is a matter of concern.

The judicial conference in the US[6] opposed a legislation that sought to televise court trials on these very grounds.

On the other hand, several hold the view that cameras in the court rooms would prove to be beneficial as it would allow transparency in the judicial system and would help open justice to the scrutiny of all.

They said that court security could be undermined. The conference said it believed that broadcasts showing images of judges and court employees would make them more vulnerable as targets because they could be more easily identified, and could result in increased threats against judges, lawyers, and other participants in the courtroom (including law enforcement officers and personnel Private information could be revealed about witnesses, which might serve to intimidate or discredit them, and perhaps hinder their willingness to testify. There is concern that camera coverage of private matters, including those of an embarrassing nature, could be not only broadcast widely, but also duplicated and replayed.

Furthermore, while televising criminal proceedings there is far too much concentration on murder, rapes and sensational criminal trials and not as much on constitutional issues or issues of general interest. In a country like India, where legal literacy cannot be said to be anything but poor, the argument that live criminal trails will help in educating the masses and generate legal awareness is grossly erroneous. A trial involves not basic principles of law, but highly developed and evolved ones, which a layperson cannot understand fully. Therefore, this idea of educating people can backfire as trial proceedings can mislead the viewer who does not completely understand the dynamics of oral arguments and the finer points of law.

In the US, according to a report[7] on televising US Supreme Court and other federal court proceedings, the Supreme Court has never allowed live electronic media coverage of its proceedings, but the court posts opinions and transcripts of oral arguments on its website. Currently rule 53 of the Federal rules of Criminal Procedure[8] prohibit the photographing or broadcasting of district trial courts proceedings. Under conference policy, each court of appeal may permit television and other electronic media coverage of its proceedings. Filming for archive purpose if properly monitored is not the same as filming for televising to the masses but the above certainly has been proven false in the US where televised trials and court TV have become immensely popular since OJ Simpsons trial. The spectacle of various trials goes for months and months with high ratings.

Trial by media is indeed, against the due process of law as it substantially harms that process. In India, the jury system has long been abolished after the sensational Nanavati case. It was justified by saying the jury consists of non-legal persons who are easily swayed by public opinion and therefore, justice is many times, not done. This very aspect of creating favourable or unfavourable public opinion makes the task of dispensing justice more difficult.

Another argument questioning the wisdom of televising court proceedings is the fact that, more often than not, people tend to posture before cameras, and thus, undermining the whole judicial process. If the judges alter their mode of questioning or the lawyers change their way of presenting arguments because of presence of cameras, then it possibly implies a change in the entire way a trial is conducted in a courtroom without the pressure of a camera.

Media is a very potent weapon in todays world. It can create ideologies, disseminate certain ideas and demolish opinions. If used improperly, media can have an adverse impact on trials. However, as long as the media and TV channels don''t make a mess of it, televising criminal proceedings could be influential in creating an environment where legal profession will see the benefit of having justice perceived as open and fair. Therefore, a balance needs to be struck at a basic level between media concerns, the public right to knowledge, judicial freedom and the fairness of a criminal trial before some consensus can be reached on this debatable issue.

(The author is a student of the Faculty of Law, New Delhi.)

[1] The Law Society of Upper Canada Professionalism Revisited, Rosalie Silberman Abella Justice, Court of Appeal for Ontario

[2] CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, Televising Supreme Court and Federal Court Proceedings: Legislation and Issues

[3] Judges and Media-Inter-relationship

[4] The Judiciary in the Magistrates courts, prepared for the Home Office, UK, by Rod Morgan and Neil Russell

[5] Pros and Cons of Camera in Courtrooms Set Out, A Consultation by the Department of Constitutional Affairs, UK

[6] CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, Televising Supreme Court and Federal Court Proceedings: Legislation and Issues.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.