It’s not that simple.

In this information age, society needs to carefully consider a number of possible outcomes before taking a position on the issue of cameras in courtrooms. As the digital revolution continues to grow and information is delivered in real time, the media demand for public education, openness and transparency becomes more intense by the day.  A week ago, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a Quebec court regulation which limits the use of cameras and recording devices inside courthouses.  In describing these regulations as constitutional, Mme Justice Marie Deschamps referred to the need for a reasonable balance between freedom of the press and ensuring integrity and fairness within the administration of justice.

If cameras are permitted to capture the delivery of evidence from witnesses, arguments from counsel and direction from the bench, one could reasonably expect a shift in courtroom behaviours in favour of the more theatrical, as seen during the OJ Simpson trial a few years ago.  I’m not sure we want to go there.  A deeper concern, well articulated by the learned Justice Deschamps is as follows:  “the possibility that a statement could be broadcast could have a negative effect on the search for truth, but it could also have a salutory effect on the voluntariness of the statement and, consequently, on the administration of justice.”

I wholeheartedly agree with this analysis, particularly with regard to the conduct of criminal trials.  Two scenarios immediately occur to me.

• Witnesses at Risk -  The prosecution of criminal organizations as a government priority is on the rise.  People who cooperate with law enforcement by giving evidence for the prosecution are exposed to dangers that the average citizen or journalist cannot realistically contemplate.  If a witness at risk faces the prospect of his or her face being splashed all over the evening news, bad things can happen, including a curious inability to recall facts which are necessary to obtain these difficult convictions.  This frequently occurs in organized crime trials, where a terrified witness provides evidence which is so diluted or different from their original observations that the prosecution can become derailed. Furthermore, efforts to recruit these vital witnesses will be made even more challenging as a result.

• Witness Embarrassment -  Many victims and witnesses are in possession of evidence which is uncomfortable to deliver. Testimony of this nature, when it reveals explicit or sensitive details relating to the experience of a witness, is made much more difficult with a broader audience.  The impact upon the administration of justice could be very significant if a witness, in an effort to avoid embarrassment, modifies his or her evidence to somehow appear more virtuous, as one example.

A competing reality is that there are many types of courtroom proceedings where these scenarios do not come into play.  There is no benefit in  preventing the public from observing legal arguments being made in the absence of witnesses who fall into the two categories described above.  Constitutional arguments, while exceedingly restful at times, generally pose no risk to the public interest.  Similarly, matters being heard at the Court of Appeal level rarely hear from witnesses.  In these instances, I feel that an argument can be made in support of cameras in the courtroom, on the condition that care is taken to eliminate any discourse which contributes to the vulnerability of a witness or victim.

I was responsible for managing the Witness Protection Program late in my policing career.  I’ve seen terror up close more times than one can imagine, and it’s not pretty. The bottom line is that public confidence in a justice system which demonstrates regard for all participants trumps freedom of the press.

FP.