Live-streaming of court cases makes sense
SIX years have passed since Justice Minister Delroy Chuck first told us that discussions were being held to introduce live-streaming of select criminal and civil court cases.
That’s far too long with nothing to show.
However, we are encouraged that Chief Justice Bryan Sykes has again placed the issue in the public domain.
We share the view that live-streaming will help to bring some amount of transparency to the judicial system. Indeed, as both Minister Chuck and Chief Justice Sykes have pointed out, the proposed move is intended to enhance accountability — one of the key factors in any serious attempt to increase confidence in the judiciary.
Chief Justice Sykes puts it very well when he states that electronic access to our courts is one practical manifestati
on of the concept of open justice.
We believe it is in keeping with the constitutional requirement 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”.
And even as the law gives judges authority to make exceptions in specific circumstances, one cannot reasonably argue against that provision given that it provides protection in instances when it is determined that publicity would pose a risk to national security, public safety and morality, or prejudice the interest of justice.
Undoubtedly, live broadcasts of some trials will enhance the public’s understanding of how courts operate, and allow citizens to form informed opinions on the issues before the courts.
The fact that Jamaica’s highest court, the Judicial Committee of the United Kingdom Privy Council, allows live-streaming of some of its cases gives us even more reason to go that route. For, as Chief Justice Sykes correctly opined last week, “judicial independence is not a shield or immunity from scrutiny by members of the public or even the legislature or interested parties”.
Minister Chuck and Justice Sykes have been pushing hard to upgrade and modernise the country’s justice system. We commend both men and encourage them to continue, as the policies and measures they are championing can only redound to the benefit of the country and its citizens.
We suggest that as they continue along this path that they add to their to-do list a review and amendment to the section of the Gun Court Act that currently allows for cases before that court to be held in-camera, as this is inconsistent with the principle of open justice.
Indeed, we don’t believe that a credible distinction can be made between Gun Court cases and high-profile trials involving gun murders from which the media and public have not been barred.
Six years ago Minister Chuck listened to and acted on our appeal to allow journalists covering court cases to use electronic recording devices, particularly tape recorders. At the time we pointed out that this was not an uncommon feature in other jurisdictions, and would basically end complaints by some attorneys and court officials of “inaccurate reporting”, while contributing to the public gaining a better understanding of trial dialogue.
Over to you again, Minister Chuck.