The right way on reporting legal proceedings:

Court guide to steer clear of courting trouble

Gaston de ROSAYRO

Last week we discussed how reporters could effectively capture the dramatic moments in the courtroom and how to do it safely, without being hauled into the dock for contempt. The law according to Charles’ Dicken’s character Mr. Bumble may be an ass. But never underestimate the powers of the court and take things lightly because you will decidedly be courting trouble.

That is because anyone who flouts the court laws will be charged with contempt of court. We will deal with the subject of contempt in another discourse. The penalties could be harsh and include fines or jail terms. So always ensure you abide by the laws of the judiciary.

There are certain basic aspects of court reporting that reporters should familiarise themselves with. From the time somebody is about to be charged with an offence, up to the moment when the court finishes dealing with it, the case is said to be sub judice. In practice, sub judice normally starts when a person is arrested, charged or a warrant is issued for their arrest and ends when the judge or jury gives a verdict. In civil cases, sub judice normally starts when legal papers are lodged with the court and ends with the court's decision.

Sub judice is a Latin phrase meaning ‘under judgement’. It is pronounced ‘sub joo-da-see’. While a case is sub judice, journalists are strictly limited as to what they can write.

This is to make sure that they do not interfere with the job of the court in giving the defendant a fair trial. We shall look in detail in a moment at what we are and what we are not allowed to write.

It is the job of the courts, and nobody else, to decide whether or not the person charged did in fact commit the crime. Nobody should be tried and convicted by crime or court reporters, in the columns of a newspaper or over the air waves.

Of course, it is also important to society that journalists (or anyone else for that matter) have the right to talk about things, and we shall talk more about that later in this article. But where two important rights clash, one has to be limited in the interests of the other.

For example, anyone has the right to drive from one town to another.

However, because the people who live along the way have the right to walk safely around their homes, the speed at which you can drive may be limited. And because people driving the other way also have their rights, you may be limited to driving on only one side of the road.

In the same way, the right to talk about a crime is limited in order to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial. People who have done nothing wrong should not be afraid that they will be punished if they are charged, perhaps by mistake, or if someone takes legal action against them in a civil case. They should be able to be confident that they will be cleared of the accusation. Otherwise, all people will live in fear of the law, instead of feeling that it is there to protect them.

A court is the place where society employs specially trained people to decide whether or not a person really did something wrong. If a crime has been committed, then the police need to find the person responsible. That is their job. But it is not the job of the police to punish that person. That is the job of the courts, and before they punish anyone they need to be convinced that the police have caught the right person - the person who actually committed the crime.

At a trial, the police or their lawyer present the evidence which makes them believe that the defendant is the guilty person, and the defendant (or their lawyer) presents evidence in an attempt to show that the police are wrong. When the court has heard all the evidence, the jury (if there is one) or the judge (if there is no jury) decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

What can we report? When a crime has been committed, reporters need to tell their readers or listeners about it. They may talk to people who saw the crime, or whose property was stolen or damaged, and quote the things those people have to say. However, as soon as the police have caught someone they believe to be responsible for that crime, and are about to charge them with that offence, then reporters are limited in what they can say about the crime.

You can report the fact that the crime happened, that someone is being charged and any facts about it which are not likely to be challenged in court.

If a man has been charged with breaking into a shop and stealing Rs. 50,000 in cash and goods worth Rs. 2,500, then we must report the fact that he has been charged. We may write: “A man has been charged with burglaryfollowing the break-in at the Budget Price supermarket at the weekend. Santiago de Horaputhraya, 328, of Averiwatte Road Hendala, has been charged with stealing Rs. 50,000 in cash and goods worth Rs. 2,500 from the shop on the night of February 23.

It is important to note that we did not say that Santiago actually committed the crime - that is not a fact.

It is the job of the courts to decide whether or not he did it. All we said is that Santiago has been charged with the crime - that is a fact - and that there was a break-in at the shop at the weekend - that is also a fact.

Anything which reporters publish about the details of the crime or the suffering of the victims, after someone has been charged, could interfere with the court's job. If there is to be a jury, they could be influenced by what they read in the papers, or by what they hear in the news. If the sad stories of how the victims suffered continue to be published right up to the day of the trial, the jury may feel bitter and angry towards the accused person. This will make it difficult for him to have a fair trial.

Even in cases where there is no jury system, judges do not like cases being commented on, or background being published, until the case is finished. The courts are there to act on behalf of ordinary people, so it is important that they carry out their business in public, for all to see.

It is a vital principle that Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. In other words, courts have to do the right thing, and the public have to see and understand that they do so.

Reporters are members of the public, and so are the readers or listeners they represent.

Reporters as such have the right to attend court cases, and a duty to be there whenever possible on behalf of their readers and listeners who cannot be there. Court reporters may be given a special place in the courtroom to sit, called a press gallery. Essentially, though, there is no difference between the court reporter and any other member of the public in the courtroom.

There are three main reasons why journalists report court cases: to encourage public confidence in the law, to help the law deter future crime and to get strong news stories.

[email protected]