Audio-visual Coverage of Courts: A Comparative Analysis

Half-title......Page 3
Title......Page 5
Copyright......Page 6
Table of Contents......Page 7
Scotland......Page 9
(d) Canada......Page 10
(ii) New South Wales......Page 11
(vii) Tasmania......Page 12
(f) New Zealand......Page 13
(b) United Kingdom......Page 14
(c) United States......Page 15
(d) Canada......Page 16
(e) Australia......Page 17
(f) New Zealand......Page 19
Abbreviations......Page 21
A An overview of the history of the debate......Page 25
B Current issues of the debate......Page 27
C The key arguments......Page 30
D Structure......Page 31
E Scope and terminology......Page 33
A Introduction......Page 35
B The Caplan Report......Page 37
1 Enactment of the statutory prohibition......Page 39
2 Reforms of the 1980s......Page 42
D Broadcast of parliamentary proceedings......Page 44
E First broadcasts of judicial proceedings......Page 45
1 Reasons for the relaxation......Page 46
2 Lord Hope’s Directions......Page 47
3 Reactions to the broadcast of Scottish proceedings......Page 50
G Impact of the broadcast of overseas trials......Page 53
1 The Law Lords’ reasons for restricting access......Page 56
2 The Pinochet hearings......Page 57
1 The Lockerbie trial......Page 59
2 The Lockerbie appeal......Page 64
1 The Shipman Inquiry......Page 65
2 The Hutton Inquiry......Page 67
K Implications of recent rulings for current restrictions and statutory prohibitions......Page 69
L Impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on rights and UK judges......Page 76
1 Foreshadowing an experiment......Page 80
2 The Pilot Programme......Page 83
3 The Consultation Paper......Page 84
4 Consultation Seminar......Page 85
5 Public responses to the consultation......Page 87
N Conclusion......Page 88
A Introduction......Page 93
2 Concerns predating photography......Page 95
4 The Hauptmann trial......Page 97
5 Television......Page 102
6 Estes v. Texas......Page 103
7 Post-Estes......Page 104
(a) Technology......Page 105
(b) Public familiarisation with television as a source of public information......Page 106
2 Estes v. Texas......Page 107
4 Nixon, Gannett and Richmond Newspapers......Page 108
5 Post-Chandler......Page 110
6 Implications of the reliance on media rights......Page 116
7 The First Amendment and the regulation of court reporting......Page 118
1 Overview......Page 120
2 State court studies......Page 124
3 New York State......Page 126
4 California......Page 135
5 Washington State......Page 143
6 Idaho......Page 145
E Streaming or webcasting of state courts......Page 146
1 Florida......Page 148
2 Indiana......Page 150
5 Other state courts......Page 151
1 Background......Page 152
(a) Scope and framework of the Pilot......Page 154
(b) Evaluation......Page 155
(c) Judicial Conference’s rejection of the findings......Page 160
3 Partial readmission of cameras into federal courts......Page 162
4 The McVeigh trial......Page 164
5 Legislation seeking to open up federal courts......Page 165
6 Opposition of US Supreme Court Justices......Page 166
G Conclusion......Page 170
A Introduction......Page 172
(a) Supreme Court of Canada......Page 174
(b) Federal Court of Appeal and Nova Scotia Court of Appeal......Page 175
(a) Supreme Court of Canada......Page 176
(c) Nova Scotia Court of Appeal......Page 177
(b) Federal Court of Canada......Page 178
(c) Nova Scotia’s Pilot......Page 179
(a) Revealed that fears unsubstantiated......Page 180
(b) Recognised the educative value of audio-visual coverage......Page 181
(c) CJC withdraws its opposition......Page 182
(d) Lack of media interest......Page 183
(e) Responding to a lack of media interest......Page 184
2 Extent of coverage in trial courts......Page 186
3 Why trial court coverage has been denied......Page 188
(a) Exercise of discretionary jurisdiction......Page 189
(b) Common law rule......Page 190
(c) Court rules, policies and guidelines......Page 191
(d) Statutory prohibition......Page 193
(a) Fears are not substantiated......Page 195
(b) Dangers can be minimised through appropriate regulation......Page 197
(c) Challenges to positive evaluations: problems identified......Page 198
(d) Assessment as reflection of personal views rather than evidence......Page 201
(e) Opposition in spite of findings and recommendations......Page 202
1 Introduction......Page 205
2 Impact on Canada’s constitutional structure and legal traditions......Page 206
3 Charter’s impact on legal rights principles......Page 207
4 Charter’s impact on camera access to court proceedings......Page 210
(a) The appeal......Page 212
(b) Existence of a common law rule......Page 214
(c) Is the common law rule in breach of section 2(b) rights?......Page 215
(d) Can infringement or denial of rights be saved by section 1?......Page 217
(e) Would permitting recording only with the consent of parties breach Charter rights?......Page 221
(f) Conclusion re R v. Pilarinos and Clark......Page 223
(a) Courts’ recognition of rights......Page 224
(b) Concerns regarding values promoted by the Charter......Page 225
(c) What the Pickton hearings reveal about Canadian regulation of reporting......Page 228
7 Conclusion on Charter rights......Page 231
E General implications and issues......Page 232
A Introduction......Page 234
1 General statutory restrictions......Page 235
2 Contempt of court......Page 236
Contempt in the face of the court......Page 238
Sub judice contempt......Page 240
3 Inherent jurisdiction......Page 241
1 Absence of entrenched rights......Page 245
(a) Constitutional rights......Page 246
(b) International law......Page 251
2 Proactive role played by Australian courts......Page 254
1 Initial broadcasts......Page 257
(a) NSWLRC Issues Paper......Page 259
(b) ICAC......Page 260
1 Overview......Page 261
2 Recording and broadcast of documentaries......Page 268
(a) Introduction......Page 272
(b) Access to Justice Report......Page 274
(c) The Electronic Media Coverage of Courts Report......Page 275
(d) Court’s incremental admission of television cameras......Page 276
(e) Judgment summaries......Page 282
(f) Conclusion......Page 283
(a) Introduction......Page 284
(c) Justice Teague’s sentencing of Nathan John Avent......Page 285
(d) The Quentin Roberts ruling......Page 291
(e) Broadcast of civil cases......Page 293
5 Family Court of Australia......Page 294
(a) Introduction......Page 296
(b) Minority support of audio-visual coverage......Page 297
(c) Majority opposition......Page 299
(d) Reforms......Page 302
(e) Conclusion......Page 303
2 The Wood Royal Commission......Page 305
3 Televising of Federal Parliament......Page 307
4 Televising of the 1998 Constitutional Convention......Page 309
5 Australian Broadcasting Authority, 1999 Commercial Radio Inquiry......Page 311
6 Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission......Page 313
2 Crucial role played by courts......Page 314
4 Impact of new technologies on regulation of media reporting......Page 318
5 Potential benefits of new technologies......Page 321
A Introduction......Page 324
1 Introduction......Page 325
(a) The Working Party’s study......Page 326
(b) The Working Party’s Report......Page 327
(c) The Working Party’s recommendations......Page 328
(d) Reception and adoption of the Working Party’s recommendations......Page 330
3 Role played by the Bill of Rights Act......Page 333
4 Opposition to the Pilot Programme......Page 337
(a) Legal profession......Page 338
(b) Police and victim support groups......Page 343
(c) Media......Page 344
(d) Inadequacy of consultation......Page 345
6 Conclusion......Page 348
1 Scope of the Pilot Programme......Page 350
2 Televised cases not covered by the Pilot Programme......Page 351
(a) Carter......Page 352
(b) The Calder trials......Page 353
(c) Barlow......Page 354
(e) Anderson......Page 355
(a) Trials......Page 356
4 Lack of initial media interest......Page 357
1 Evaluation Committee......Page 359
2 Case-based research......Page 360
3 Evaluation of public perceptions......Page 361
4 The Final Report......Page 362
1 New Zealand Law Commission......Page 363
2 Paul Murray’s Survey of Barristers......Page 364
1 Initial extension and expansion of televising......Page 365
2 Further revision of guidelines under Chief Justice Elias......Page 367
3 Effect of most recent changes to the regulation of court televising......Page 370
4 Supreme Court......Page 371
G Conclusion......Page 372
A Introduction......Page 375
1 Introduction......Page 376
(a) Disruption, distraction, decorum and dignity......Page 381
(b) Psychological effect on courtroom participants......Page 389
(c) Effect on the right to a fair trial......Page 390
(d) Effect on witnesses......Page 392
(i) The concerns......Page 398
(ii) Australian study......Page 400
(iii) New Zealand study......Page 403
(iv) Canadian studies......Page 404
(v ) American studies......Page 405
(vi) British studies......Page 406
(vii) Conclusions regarding the effectiveness of preventative and remedial measures......Page 407
(f) Privacy......Page 411
(g) Effect on judges and lawyers......Page 414
(a) Potential to distort and sensationalise......Page 417
(b) Potential to educate and inform......Page 420
(c) Capacity to enhance open justice......Page 423
4 Inconclusiveness of research findings......Page 427
1 Introduction......Page 430
2 Role of rights......Page 432
3 Judicial attitudes......Page 434
4 Technology......Page 436
D Conclusion......Page 438
Appendix 1: Persons Consulted......Page 441
Appendix 2: Guidelines for Electronic Coverage of Judicial Proceedings, Western Australian Courts (1996)......Page 447
1 Books and Reports......Page 449
2 Journal Articles......Page 459
3 Newspaper and Magazine Articles......Page 478
4 Other Sources......Page 500
Index......Page 510