KEY POINTS:
A high court judge is challenging the rules which allow media to film and take photographs in court.
The judgment, released yesterday, described the broadcast of footage or publishing of photographs of an accused on trial as akin to the ancient punishment of pillory.
One media law expert called it extraordinary, and another said it was a "slap in the face" for the judges involved in drawing up the guidelines, which were developed in 2000 and revised three years later.
Justice John Fogarty issued the judgement in response to media applications to electronically record aspects of the double murder trial of Lipine Sila, 22, who allegedly drove his car through partygoers on Edgeware Road in Christchurch in May last year.
Sila has pleaded not guilty in Christchurch District Court to charges, including murdering 16-year-olds Jane Young and Hannah Rossiter.
Justice Fogarty yesterday confirmed an order banning the filming or photographing of Sila in the trial.
He then declared that two of the in-court media coverage guidelines were not a correct statement of the law.
He wrote that the guidelines presumed the trial judge would allow photographing and filming of the accused during the trial - and the resulting images could be broadcast and published before the end of the trial.
But that was "an error of law", he wrote, because it went against the required treatment of the accused as innocent until proven guilty.
"Broadcasting and publishing photos of any accused while on trial is often a public humiliation, akin to the ancient punishment of pillory," he wrote. "Accordingly, it is prohibited by the common law."
University of Canterbury associate professor Ursula Cheer, who co-wrote Media Law in New Zealand, said it was the first time a judge had issued a challenge to the guidelines.
She expected a legal response from media organisations or a rewrite of the guidelines.
Steven Price, a Wellington barrister specialising in media law, said the decision was "questionable", and said Justice Fogarty had gone too far in saying filming accused during a trial - even when they were not giving evidence - interfered with their right to be presumed innocent.
"It's also rather a slap in the face for those judges who were involved in drawing up the in-court media coverage guidelines, and those who have for years applied them without questioning their legality," he said.
