By Jane Luscombe
The Justice Minister has agreed to take another look at the use of television cameras in courts. Judith Collins said she was appalled at the way some cases had been sensationalised on TV.
Clayton Weatherston, David Bain, Ewen Macdonald – never mind the verdicts, their faces are now familiar to all television viewers.
But the presence of TV cameras at trials was under scrutiny today.
“There's quite a lot of concern that cameras in court are not actually fulfilling the role that many would have thought,” said Ms Collins on The Nation this morning. “There's a lot of sensationalism.”
When cameras were first allowed in court in 1995, it was to make the justice system more transparent.
“There are rules concerning the televising of trials and one of those rules is that no member of the public or any person on a jury panel or in a jury may be screened on television,” said Dame Silvia Cartwright in 1995.
The Justice Minister wanted those rules looked at again and possibly extended to give the judges more control.
It's up to the presiding judge in each case whether cameras are allowed. But once they're in, the question remains how much influence should they have over how journalists write their stories.
Ms Collins was unhappy with what she called the “tiny snippets” shown on TV, which she said didn't reflect all of the evidence.
But as for the idea of broadcasting entire trials: case dismissed.
“The thought of turning our courtrooms into reality TV frankly appals me and it won't be happening,” said Ms Collins.
Commentators agree, for a different reason.
“The alternative is court TV and, believe me, having sat through a lot of court cases it's not Judge Judy,” said television presenter Susan Wood.
Defence lawyer Greg King, was critical of how the media shaped public perception, saying it was “ridiculous”.
He didn't want to be interviewed today, but has previously said that during his summing up of Ewen Macdonald's defence, he shouted once in four hours and that was the part given most prominence on TV.
Journalist Bill Ralston told The Nation having cameras in court was an improvement on the days when people were regularly hounded outside.
“It turns the courts actually into a fiasco, a rolling circus at times, a media circus, and you don't get that so much now in New Zealand,” he said.
In the UK, they're only just about to start letting cameras in and only to the Court of Appeal. That could extend, in time, to sentencing.
Civil rights pressure group Liberty says it will oppose anything more, including filming trials. But Ms Collins said stopping the filming of trials here was not an option.
3 News