« Nice Job 2 | Main | Open letter to Reading Cinemas »
Nice Job 3
By Steven | October 2, 2008
This week also sees a ripper of a decision from Justice Harrison, overturning Judge Treston’s ruling that the media can’t have a copy of the videotape evidence from the unsuccessful prosecution of the police officers accused of assaulting Rawiri Falwasser with batons and pepper spray in custody. (I have criticised Judge Treston’s decision here).
Among the many things to admire in Harrison J’s judgment:
- He sets out the context of the case, noting that “Mr Falwasser’s behaviour throughout the seven hour period [that he was in custody] placed the officers in a situation of accelerating difficulty”, and that it’s only when you look at the key pieces of the film in slow motion that you can see the threat that the police officers were responding to.
- He rejects the idea that the courts have taken a “cautious approach” to applications for access to court material. Instead, he suggests a presumption in favour of a right to search.
- He knocks on the head the argument that open justice has been served by allowing the presence of the media at the hearing itself. He accepts the argument from Adam Hopkinson (buy that man a drink, too) that “taken to its logical conclusion… leave would never be granted”. Later, the judge says the courts shouldn’t assume that “the media always acts as an adequate filter on the contents of a primary exhibit or source document when reporting a trial.” Journalists don’t necessarily know what’s important when they’re covering the hurly burly of a trial, with the limited information they have at the time. (The key issues might not even be clear to the lawyers until the trial progresses!) Besides, much of the time reporters are describing what happened: video evidence can tell a more complete story “which cannot be captured by a reporter’s summary”. And if reporters have already been given access, he says, what’s the harm, in the usual case, in letting them copy the video? Damn straight.
- Most importantly, he smashes the argument that “the media won’t use it fairly”. “The Court cannot deny a media request because of doubts that the video will be played or presented in a balanced or fair way,” he says firmly.
- He emphasises that the public interest in the trial doesn’t end with the verdict. Acquittals “do not disbar an inquiry into whether or not the verdicts were properly based.” That’s especially so where there’s public disquiet about the outcome. The judges shouldn’t add to the impression that there’s something to hide.
Topics: Court records, NZ Bill of Rights Act | No Comments »
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.