Time to allow cameras in Hong Kong courts
Cliff Buddle says as courts elsewhere begin to loosen rules on coverage by allowing videos and live streaming, ours should do so too
There is nothing like a court drama to grip the public's imagination and Bo Xilai's recent trial had all the necessary ingredients - wealth, power, sex, violence and political intrigue.
No wonder it became an internet hit, with edited transcripts of the proceedings drawing hundreds of thousands of followers to the Jinan court's official account. The surprise release of the transcripts has been hailed by some as a landmark for the development of open justice on the mainland.
Such claims should not be overstated. The trial was not open to the public and media access was strictly limited. The transcripts themselves were censored. The move was therefore, at best, a carefully controlled release of information, at worst, part of a sophisticated propaganda exercise - a show trial for the social media age.
But some transparency is better than none. The content of the transcripts sparked much debate on the internet, including expressions of sympathy for Bo, who was jailed for life for corruption on Sunday. It is encouraging that other mainland courts are releasing live updates on criminal trials through social media. This is no substitute for allowing the media to report cases freely, but it is a start.
The debate should make us consider how open our court proceedings are in Hong Kong. We like to think of our system as being an open one. Trials are generally open to the public and are widely covered by the media. Written judgments can be found on the judiciary's website.
But court documents and transcripts of trials are not easy to obtain. They should be readily available. Journalists are not allowed to send text messages or tweets from court. And cameras are banned.
We are falling behind other parts of the world. The Supreme Court in the UK allows live streaming of hearings and has a YouTube channel for video clips featuring summaries of the court's judgments.
They may not make gripping viewing, but there is much to be said for allowing people to see the judge delivering the decision of the court. The video summaries are much easier to digest than written judgments. They further public understanding and awareness of the legal issues.
That is why the UK is now extending the use of cameras in the courts. It is not alone. Australia's High Court will feature videos of court proceedings on its website from next month.
Critics of televising the courts usually point to controversies in the US, where cameras have been in some courts since the 1970s. There are fears that witnesses will be deterred from giving evidence, defendants humiliated and that the public will make snap judgments about guilt or innocence.
But such concerns arise mainly when evidence is given in criminal trials and would not be a problem for the delivery of judgments or cases in the higher courts. The UK experience shows the worst excesses can be avoided. We should start by broadcasting summaries of judgments being delivered in the Court of Final Appeal. This is, after all, where the most important rulings are made. It is time to put our judges on camera to ensure justice is not only done, but can be seen by the viewing public to be done.
