The Relevance of Televising Trials and the Doctrine of Res Sub Judice

Should trials be televised? A common argument is that the vast majority of trials are dull, akin to watching paint dry. However, in cases of high-profile defendants such as O. J. Simpson, the public's interest spikes significantly. This article explores the challenges and implications of televising trials, particularly focusing on the legal doctrine of Res Sub Judice.

Introduction to Res Sub Judice

Res Sub Judice delineates matters before a court. Early interpretations of this term often stigmatized it as a rigid rule. However, modern legal scholars, including individuals like Mr. Meagher, assert that Res Sub Judice is not applied strictly. Instead, it is a flexible doctrine designed to protect judicial processes from undue influence and prejudice.

The Doctrine of Res Sub Judice and Media Influence

Res Sub Judice restricts the discussion of issues currently before a court. Mr. Meagher emphasizes that while the doctrine is important, it is not absolutely inflexible. Media and public are allowed to discuss related matters as long as they do not prejudicially affect the case. In a landmark case, Ex parte Bread Manufacturers Ltd re Truth and Sportsman Ltd and another [1937] SR NSW, the court stated that while it is of extreme public interest for trials to be free from prejudice, in cases of public interest, some discussion may be permissible.

This principle is further elaborated in Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone [2012] eKLR. The court outlined three criteria for matters of public interest: (1) elucidation of public law, (2) matters important to a general class such as taxpayers, and (3) matters involving the State and its policies.

The Situation in Africa

In Africa, courts often grant media the flexibility to capture proceedings and broadcast them, provided they adhere to Res Sub Judice. For instance, during Kenya's 2013 presidential election, the media's coverage was heavily scrutinized. During the highly controversial trial involving Mr. Waititu, the court restricted his ability to discuss certain issues that were under judicial review. Similarly, the Daily Guide newspaper in Ghana faced legal challenges for misreporting court proceedings, highlighting the importance of adhering to legal principles.

Scholarly Views on Media and Justice

While the media plays a crucial role in disseminating information, excessive coverage can influence public perceptions and judicial processes. Scholars argue that judicial impartiality can be compromised if the media becomes too influential. Justice Holmes, a prominent legal figure, suggested that judges, being human, can be influenced by societal factors, sometimes affecting their judgment. This underscores the need for careful restrictions on media coverage during trials.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the relevance of Res Sub Judice is indisputable, and the definition of "general public interest" is well-defined. Trials should not be automatically televised; instead, discussions should only take place when the matter is of significant public interest and does not risk prejudicing the judicial process. This balance ensures that justice is served without undue influence from external factors.