NSW Parliament Considering Bill That Would Allow Broadcasting of Court Judgments
Tuesday 24 June 2014 @ 10.02 a.m. | IP & Media | Judiciary, Legal Profession & Procedure | Legal Research
NSW Attorney-General Brad Hazzard has introduced a bill into Parliament that would provide a presumption in favour of permitting the recording and broadcast of judgment remarks in the District and Supreme Court. The Courts Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Judgments) Bill 2014 (NSW) is currently awaiting debate in the Legislative Assembly.
In his Second Reading speech, Mr Hazzard quoted his predecessor, Greg Smith, who said:
Justice should be seen to be done and be accessible to all. Allowing more people to watch court decisions will help to show the considerations that go into the decisions judges make.
The Bill would insert substantially similar new parts into the District Court Act 1973 (NSW) and the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) that would allow the broadcasting of verdicts and sentences in criminal proceedings and civil judgments. Mr Hazzard said in his second reading speech that
“[t]he chief risk associated with filming court proceedings is the defendant’s right to a fair trial. This risk is most acute during the criminal trial process. Therefore, the bill does not apply to the trial itself."
The changes will also not apply to proceedings held in closed court, bail proceedings, proceedings involving children and young persons and proceedings under the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (NSW). Reporters will still need to apply to the Courts for permission to record and broadcast judgments, but the Courts would be required to allow the application unless an “exclusionary ground” is present or “it is not reasonably practicable to implement measures when when recording or broadcasting the judgment remarks… to prevent the broadcast of any thing that gives rise to the exclusionary ground.”
The “exclusionary grounds” include cases where the broadcast of the judgment could reveal:
- The identity of a person subject to a suppression or non-publication order
- Material subject to a suppression order or non-publication order or that is prohibited by law to be published
- Material likely to be prejudicial to other criminal proceedings
- Material that would reveal the existence of covert law enforcement operations
- Anything posing a “significant risk to the safety and security of any person in the courtroom”.
Additionally, the Chief Judge may direct that the case not be broadcast if it is their opinion “the broadcast of the judgment remarks would be detrimental to the orderly administration of the Court”. The recording and broadcast cannot identify the jury or the accused and the victim in a criminal trial (or their immediate families).
NSW Chief Justice Tom Bathurst told the Sydney Morning Herald that the new bill would not make a huge difference and that he had “no difficulty with it”. He believes it is “increasingly important for the judiciary to educate the community about the law”, and also called on judges to provide summaries for high-profile cases.
TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.
Sources:
Courts Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Judgments) Bill 2014 + supplementary materials - available from TimeBase's LawOne Service
