Editorial | Yes to cameras in court

Bryan Sykes will likely face resistance from fellow judges to his suggestion that court proceedings should be broadcast live.

However, for courts over which he has the authority, the chief justice should insist that such broadcasts become the default, to be varied only if the interest of justice demands otherwise.

Allowing the video broadcast of hearings would not be breaking entirely new ground in Jamaica, for portions of matters before the chief justice have in the past been live- streamed via the Internet. More importantly, though, as Justice Sykes has noted, the move would advance the concept of open justice, making the courts more accessible to regular people, while educating citizens about the judicial process.

Indeed, most Jamaicans – as is probably the case with people around the world – have a wariness of ‘courthouse’. They have little understanding of how the judicial system works, and perceive it as something to be approached with trepidation – a deified presence not directly engaged by ordinary folk.

Despite the several changes that have taken place over time, these notions about justice and its delivery continue to be shored up by the many arcane procedures and rituals that still surround the practice of law.

There was perhaps a time when this sense of distance, and almost ritualistic opaqueness of the judicial process, may have been valuable in protecting the judiciary’s independence from political and other encroachments.

But, as Chief Justice Sykes told his Caribbean colleagues at a conference in Kingston last week, “judicial independence is not a shield or immunity from scrutiny by members of the public, or even the legislature or interested parties”.

Or it ought not to be.

TRANSPARENCY

Indeed, just as citizens have a right to insist on transparency by the legislature and the executive in conducting their business, they have an interest in ensuring similar openness from the judiciary, a co-equal arm of government.

It cannot be a matter of judges merely insisting on being trusted or asserting the fact that their rulings are open to review by higher courts.

In fact, Jamaica’s Constitution places on the courts an obligation of transparency, declaring at Section 16 (3) that “all proceedings of every court and proceedings relating to the determination of the existence or the extent of a person’s civil rights or obligations before any court or other authority, including the announcement of the decision of the court or authority, shall be held in public”.

It, however, gives judges the power to make exceptions to this principle where the law requires it, or “where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice” or undermine national defence, public order, public safety or public morality.

The courts have, in general, operated in accordance with this precept, abiding by the principle of open justice. They are, in a literal sense, open to the, even if intimidated, public.

Nonetheless, courtrooms can hardly accommodate more than a handful of people, beyond those with direct interest in matters before them. The press, in the circumstances, became a proxy for the public. It reports on, and makes available to the citizenry, court proceedings.

However, what constitutes the press has long since evolved beyond printed newspapers and magazines. Radio and television have been in existence for many generations. In recent decades, the evolution of the Internet has spawned new forms of digital media outlets.

The courts have been slow to accommodate the new technologies. They have mostly prevented live broadcasts, visual images or sound of their hearings.

ALTER BEHAVIOUR

Judicial officials fear that a general presence of cameras and microphones in courtrooms could alter the behaviour of the people involved in trials or hearings, causing them to perform for external audiences rather than concentrate on the substance of the matters at hand. Such attitudes would possibly be detrimental to the interests of justice.

Behaviour of this type can be easily cauterised. Just as they clear courtrooms of unnecessary people when sensitive issues or critical matters of law need to be resolved outside the hearing of the public, judges can order the shutdown of broadcast systems during these critical periods. Or they can rein in those participants in matters who attempt to perform for the presumed outside gallery. They do this regularly with preening lawyers.

In other words, there are sufficient safeguards against potential abuse for live broadcast of judicial proceedings to become, as Chief Justice Sykes put it, “one practical manifestation” of open justice, “where our courts are open to all, whether to attend in person or to give access electronically”.

He added: “While we might not be able to prevent persons from making mischief, what it will do is to provide real-time, reliable information to a substantial body of persons who can fill the space with accurate narratives, based on information that they have received from an authoritative source.”

We agree!

Indeed, this prescription is not totally alien to the Jamaican courts, or to Justice Sykes himself. He, for instance, allowed opening statements and his summation and verdict of a gang trial to be live-streamed. More recently, the delivery of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case challenging the constitutional amendment allowing the extension of the director of public prosecutions’ term in office was broadcast on the Internet without video.

Chief Justice Sykes should now go for the whole hog.