A Change to The Scheduled Viewing: Does Ireland Need to Change its Approach to Courtroom Television or Does the Camera Really add Ten Years?
| Author | Rory O'Malley |
| Position | Junior Sophister Law student, Trinity College, Dublin |
| Pages | 57-72 |
A
CHANGE
To
THE
SCHEDULED
VIEWING:
DOES
IRELAND
NEED
TO
CHANGE
ITS
APPROACH
TO
COURTROOM
TELEVISION
OR
DOES
THE
CAMERA
REALLY
ADD
TEN
YEARS?
RORY
O'MALLEY*
Introduction
In
this
era
of
electronic
media, Ireland
has
remained relatively
isolated
from
the
frenzy
that
has
surrounded
courtroom
television
in
other
jurisdictions,
most notably
the
United
States.
There
are
no
legislative
provisions governing
this
area
in
Ireland,
and
it
is
left to
the discretion
of
the
judge
to
interpret
the
common
law
rules
on
contempt
of
court
in
each
individual
case.
The
consequence
of
this
is
that
the
broadcast
media
are
virtual
strangers
to
the
courtrooms
of
this country.
This article
sets
out
to
examine
the
differing
approaches that
have
been taken by
courts
in
both
the United
Kingdom
and
the United
States,
which
seem
to
occupy
opposite
ends
of
the
spectrum.
The
all
embracing
English
ban
and
the
contentious
line
of
demarcation between
freedom
of
expression
and trial
in
due
course
of
law
in
America
serve
as
both
a
warning
and an
example against any approach
that weighs
one right
more
heavily
than
the
other.
The ever
increasing
proliferation
of
the
media
in
society,
and
of
television
in
particular,
pushes the issue closer
to
the fore
in
this
country
as
well, and
the
Irish courts
have had
to
deal
with
related issues,
albeit
in
a
much
smaller
capacity.
The
appearance
of
the
problem
in
this
jurisdiction
does give
us
the
chance
to
take
cognisance
of
the pitfalls that
exist,
and
formulate
an
approach
that
best
serves
the
interests
of
all
the
parties
involved.
*
Junior
Sophister
Law
student,
Trinity College, Dublin.
While
retaining responsibility
for
all
errors
and
omissions,
I
would
like
to
thank
Mr.
Eoin
O'Dell,
Lecturer
in
Law,
Trinity
College, Dublin,
for
his
helpful
comments
and
suggestions.
©
1999
Rory
O'Malley
and
Dublin University
Law
Society
Trinity
College Law
Review
The
British
Approach
The
English
legislative intervention
in
the
realm
of
electronic
media has
been
somewhat
tentative.
Section
9
of
the
Contempt
of
Court
Act,
1981
specifically
prohibits
the
broadcast
of
sound
recordings;
and
pictures
have
been unlawful
since
the enactment
of
the
Criminal
Justice Act,
1925.'
It is
obvious
that
this
legislation
was not
drafted
with
modern developments
in
mind,
but
the words used
are
broad enough
to
encompass
television.
2
Interestingly,
the
sanction
imposed
by
section
41 is
"a
fine
not
exceeding
fifty
pounds".
3
While
the
1925
Act
was
the
first
legislative
intervention
into
media
coverage
of
the
courts,
the
common
law
rules on
contempt
of
court
had
previously
policed
the
role
of
the
media
in
the
court's
business.
This
system
enabled the
court not only
to fine
and
imprison
offenders,
but
also
"to
sequester
assets
in
response
to
prejudice
or
interference
with the
judicial
process".
4
The
mechanism emerged
originally
as
an
instrument
to
control people
that
were
in
more
direct
contact
with
the
court, but
it
was
gradually
extended
as
the influence
of
the
print
media
in
particular
grew.
5
The
reasons
behind
the
enactment
of
the
1925
ban
in
England
are
quite interesting,
especially
when
looked
at
in
the
light
of
the
present
situation.
A
number
of
cases
that attracted
media
attention
prompted
the
government
of
the
time to
take
steps
against
it,
and
one
such
incident
involved
the
publication
of
a
photograph
in
the
Mirror
newspaper
of
Bucknill
J.
passing
a
death sentence.
Opinions
at
the
time
saw
such
activities
as
having
little
public
benefit,
and
a
clampdown
on
the
practices
would
have the
added advantage
of
providing
more
-definite
protection
of
the
rights
of
all
the
parties
involved
in
the
proceedings
than the common
law
rules
on
contempt.
Even
in
the
less
intense
media
atmosphere
of
the
1920s,
unnecessary distress
to the
parties and
undignified,
tasteless press
coverage
all
had
their
part
to
play
in
reinforcing
the
limitations
on
the
press
to
the
instrument
of
the
printed
word.
6
Section
41.
2
Section
41(2)(c)
of
the
1925
Act stipulates
that
"a
photograph,
portrait
or
sketch
shall
be
deemed
to
be
a
photograph, portrait
or
sketch
taken
or
made
in
the
court
if
it
is
taken
or
made
in
the
courtroom
or
in
the
building or
in
the
precincts
of
the building
in
which
the
court
is
held,
or
if
it
is a
photograph, portrait
or
sketch taken
or
made
of
the
person
while he
is
entering or
leaving the
courtroom
or
any
such
building
or precincts
aforesaid".
3
Section
41(1)(b).
4
McGonagle,
A
Textbook
on
Media
Law
(Gill
&
McMillan,
1996),
at 38.
5
In
England
the area
is
now governed
by
the
Contempt
of
Court
Act,
1981.
6
This
reasoning
was
reconstructed
by
Dockray
(1988)
51
MLR
593.
[Vol.
2
To continue reading
Request your trial