A proposed ban on filming court proceedings has sparked a heated debate amongst lawyers and journalists. Some view the proposed ban as a violation of society’s right to information about the progress of courts’ investigations, while judicial spokesmen argue that courtroom photography turns court proceedings into a “circus.”
Some lawyers have rejected the idea of a ban out of hand, arguing that, since court proceedings are fundamentally public in nature, a ban would deprive the public of its right to follow significant cases.
The controversy began after the Supreme Judicial Council issued a statement—the precursor to a formal resolution. Secretary General of the Supreme Judicial Council Mohamed Eid Salem said that the Council was reviewing a proposal to ban filming inside courtrooms, and will be issuing a decision soon.
Salem added that he supports the ban, noting that TV cameras may influence judges, lawyers and witnesses, who may be concerned about how they appear on camera, rather than concentrating on the lawsuit.
He explained that filming inside courtrooms influences behavior, and that some might perform for the camera, adjusting their clothes, and paying more attention to their appearance than defending the accused, thus encouraging others to do the same. He said that banning filming is nothing to do with transparency, and that journalists are welcome to attend court proceedings. He added that if radio journalists want to follow the case, they should attend and record the events, but it is not acceptable for members of the media to deal with cases as though they were theatrical dramas to be recorded and broadcast.
Court of Cassation Vice President Judge Ahmed Mekky said that filming is also unacceptable inside the courts because it is improper to show a judge while he is writing the reasons for his ruling. This is because the legislature accords him privacy to write the decision. Likewise it is not permitted to attack a judge or any of his colleagues on air or for a judge to issue an opinion on a ruling he has issued.
Mekky explained that filming court room proceedings for television negatively influences lawyers who may exploit it for fame, rather than concentrating on litigation, and that it draws their attention and concentration away from legal matters. According to Mekky some may use the publicity to influence other cases, deliberately sensationalizing matters. He also pointed out that filming is banned in every nation in the world. He stressed the importance of doing likewise in Egypt, at the same time maintaining a media presence to report cases, since the ban will be only apply to television cameras.
Nasser Amin, Director of The Arab Center for the Independence of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession rejected the idea of a ban, saying that the essence of the court room proceedings according to international standards is transparency. He claimed that transparency means that such proceedings must be held in the full sight and hearing of society, giving an opportunity to everyone who wants to attend or to observe the trial.
Amin stressed that there are exceptions to the rule of transparency according to international standards, in which case courts, judges or states have the right to place restrictions on reporting. These exceptions apply if the case involves information important to national security, or military information that might cause panic if revealed to the general public, information related to public order and morality and family law cases. The latter are considered to be at the heart of privacy laws, because the harm done to the opposing parties, usually husband and wife, by exposure to publicity, far outweighs any benefit to the general public.
Amin added that the principle of transparency is one of the safeguards of a fair trial, and can enable community oversight of the judges and the judiciary. Public media access provides the greatest degree of community participation, and is especially important given that Egypt does not have the jury system as in America, and instead relies on the judge as the basis for just trials.
