Open justice, transparency and the media: representing the public interest in the physical and virtual courtroom

Bosland, Jason and Townend, Judith (2018) Open justice, transparency and the media: representing the public interest in the physical and virtual courtroom. Communications Law, 23 (4). pp. 183-202. ISSN 1746-7616

[img] PDF - Published Version
Download (268kB)
[img] PDF - Accepted Version
Restricted to SRO admin only
Available under License All Rights Reserved.

Download (1MB)

Abstract

In 2012, Lord Justice Toulson observed that the practical application of open justice ‘may need reconsideration from time to time to take account of changes in the way society and the courts work’. In this article, we undertake such a reconsideration in light of the declining role that institutional media organisations play in promoting and protecting the principle of open justice, focusing on courts in England and Australia. We argue that due to changes in the communications landscape, the media no longer have the resources or sufficient inclination to adequately safeguard the public interest in transparency in the courts. In order to place the media’s declining role into context, we also briefly explore three further categories of contemporary challenges facing the open justice principle: changes to judicial attitudes to open justice in response to new communication technologies; shifts in the priority given in law to competing interests in national security and privacy; and, finally, new and emerging changes to court processes and procedures that potentially limit open justice, including virtual courts. We then consider mechanisms that would offer enhanced protection of open justice. Most boldly, we examine a novel model in which an open justice advocate (OJA) intervenes in appropriate circumstances, with the overall objective of ensuring maximum transparency of court proceedings. We also suggest additional mechanisms for greater transparency and accountability regarding the state of open justice in the courts – namely, a statutory duty on courts to give written public reasons for all decisions regarding open justice, a public register of all reporting restrictions (and similar orders) granted by the courts, and annual open justice reporting requirements.

Item Type: Article
Keywords: Open justice, Freedom of expression, Public interest, Online courts, Court reporting
Schools and Departments: School of Law, Politics and Sociology > Law
Research Centres and Groups: Sussex Centre for Human Rights Research
Depositing User: Judith Townend
Date Deposited: 27 Nov 2018 14:10
Last Modified: 17 Jul 2019 10:30
URI: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/80451

View download statistics for this item

📧 Request an update