KEY POINTS:
Judges sometimes forget that the court system is as much about the public as themselves and juries. How else to explain Judge Patrick Treston's refusal to allow media organisations to screen a video of police officers using batons and pepper spray on a man in custody? The ruling denies the public the chance to see a pivotal aspect of a high-profile trial that concluded with four police officers being acquitted of assaulting Rawiri Falwasser in a Whakatane police station cell. That means, in turn, that people do not have the right to make up their own minds, via the video, whether the force the officers used was reasonable and necessary.
The judge's reasoning was odd, to say the least. In ruling that broadcasting of the contents would prejudice the acquitted officers, he said the video was three hours long, and the media would likely broadcast only segments of the footage. This, Judge Treston concluded, would result in unfair reporting because segments would be seen out of context and without regard to other evidence at the trial.
This overlooks the fact that all media coverage of a trial or, indeed, any other event is a summary. Out of necessity, it cannot be a blow-by-blow account of proceedings. There must be a high degree of selectivity. A television report of a trial may, typically, last two minutes, while a newspaper's report on a day's happenings may occupy 15 paragraphs. Yet, by and large, these reports put the proceedings of that day in context and pay due regard to what has come earlier in the trial.
Indeed, they must. Courtrooms enjoy greater protection in that respect than other domains. If a media outlet's reports are not fair and accurate, it risks being found in contempt of court. That means reports must not be partial or summarised in such a manner that they give a misleading impression.
Achieving the right balance while reporting courtroom proceedings can be taxing, as Judge Treston intimates. It is, however, achieved by media outlets every day. It would, therefore, be perfectly possible to produce a balanced report using extracts from the cellblock video. To suggest otherwise reveals mistrust in the media and a scant regard for their role as a conduit between the courtroom and the public.
Other aspects of Judge Treston's ruling are equally unconvincing. He agreed with the police officers' defence counsel that because the cellblock video had no sound, it did not paint a complete picture of events. But footage from closed-circuit surveillance systems generally makes a compelling case, with or without sound. Take that of English premiership footballer Joey Barton, who in May was imprisoned for six months after CCTV images taken in Liverpool city centre captured him assaulting two men. Sound was utterly superfluous when it came to judging the nature of the incident.
As a rule of thumb, courtroom exhibits should be available to the public. Only in the most exceptional circumstances should exceptions be made. The Whakatane cellblock video is not one of these. The case attracted a high degree of interest before, during and after the trial, when Mr Falwasser's parents bitterly denounced the verdict. People have the right to make their own judgment on actions by four police officers that led to the nine counts of assault. The public's access to evidence before courts should not, as seems to be the increasing belief in some judicial circles, be only at the pleasure of a judge or jury.
In this instance, there is nothing to prevent the contents of the video being portrayed fairly, accurately and reasonably. To deny that is to deny the opportunity for open justice. On that basis, any legal challenge to Judge Treston's ruling would be welcome.
