That would, of course, mean that any member of the public would – in principle – be allowed to sit in the OP courtroom and listen to evidence, even evidence by a pathologist who gives graphic details of a model who died of several gunshot wounds. If those members of the public should start throwing up on hearing the evidence, like Oscar did, then they would also have the right to leave the courtroom. Unfortunately it is highly impractical for all members of the public to attend one court case. This is why all members of the public have representatives in the court: the media. The various forms of the media are the ‘eyes and ears’ of the people. The job of the media is to inform the public of proceedings and hte outcome of the case (in the ‘old days’ reporting was done through the written word and the taking of photographs, but these days its includes audio and video broadcasts and recordings as well as Twitter and online feeds).
When expert witnesses (like the pathologist in this case) and advocates for the defense try their hand at the rights of the public and the media, they generally get it wrong. We cannot really blame the pathologist because he studied medicine, an extremely narrow minded science. But how the judge can get this wrong is beyond me.
I have spent many many years reporting from higher courts in SA on matters including brutal rapes and murders, which included serial murders, bombs ripping people to pieces, family members chopping each other into bits with pangas and children raped to death. All of these cases came with the most graphic details, far worse than three to four gunshots could ever inflict. All sorts of gut-wrenching evidence were led in front of aggrieved families and reported as such for the public to read, see and hear.
Why then do the public, families and dignity of the deceased now need protection? Which legal principle, may I enquire, is being applied to sooth the wishes of pathologists and advocates?Is this already an indication that Oscar’s money is talking? Or that we apply varying levels of the public’s right to know the larger the mass of the public interest?
As one social media comment suggests, most South Africans have been exposed to some form of violence through South Africa’s high crime rate. Why should this kind of evidence be too graphic?
I smell a stinky infringement of media freedom and a horrible infringement of the right of the public to be informed. Let My Lady explain.
* The opinion expressed by our guest writer is not necessarily the opinion of SA Promo.
