The main aim of the judicial system is to see to it that no citizen within territorial boundaries of the country is left without a remedy and seeking proper justice, where he actually ought to. Having a glance at the court system established in the country, where we have a plethora of judges, litigants, advocates, witnesses appearing on daily basis we can conclude that they are expected to carry out their functions effectively and also be well acquainted with the rules and regulations of the courtroom.
Now in order to confirm the same, we can allude to the idea of the video recording of the court proceedings. This concept would play a crucial role in creating awareness among everyone, and would in turn regulate the behaviour of the masses in the profession. Majorly, we can say that video recording of the proceedings would undoubtedly benefit in increasing the transparency in the judicial system. It would also support in strengthening the pillars of faith and confidence among the citizens in the country combating for their rights.
Live recording of the entire scenario of the court-room would also curtail the risk of disputes occurring on the various grounds which may beraised by the parties like , during their absence some contentions or facts might not have been taken into proper consideration by the judge while hearing the matter and the order was passed or the advocate would have represented the case in an inappropriate manner.
If this ideology is put into practise, the advocates will be under a constant pressure to be truthful and honest while addressing the court. It then, becomes a compulsion for the advocates to make full , fair, true and complete disclosure of all the relevant facts with regard to their case, before the judge.
The reason being , feeling of fear having induced in them, of being found guilty of purporting to concoct make believe, imaginary, illusory, artificial cause of action by making false, baseless ,incorrect allegations , statements, pleadings and insinuations, for the greater good of their client. It also becomes an obligation for the advocates to approach the court with clean hands , for if not, they will be held responsible for perpetuating fraud on the court and the same being done with the view to misguide the court.
Also, video recording of the court proceedings will play an indispensable role in governing the conduct of everyone present in the court- room be it the advocates, judges, litigant parties, witnesses etc on the account of, the threat of being captured in the camera eye. It would also serve as a helping hand in eliminating the risk of any sort of allegation which might be imposed on the judge or the advocate on the ground of not being able to carry out their functions efficiently.
The judges will also bear in mind that they follow a certain code of conduct being in the fraternity,due to the fear of loss of dignity and respect, and also to escape the risk of being humiliated by the public , to avoid any jeopardy in the near future , and lastly to prevent any unnecessary speculations and media interference with the system.
The advocates nor thejudges would tolerate anyone pointing a finger at them and holding them liable for not discharging their duties in an orderly manner , and so if the proceedings are recorded , a clear picture would be projected in front of everyone. The other benefit is that no allegation would be raised on the judges, of being partial, biased to any of the parties appearing before them. It would also serve as an essential source in unravelling the truth. Vasudeva , ONSC , a party secretly included his wife and son in the boardroom when he was giving evidence by video during discovery.
During his testimony, his family members were gesturing to him and influencing his responses. It is not hard to imagine that these remedies would be possible in Alberta as well.
Supreme Court held that the federal Constitution does not prohibit states from allowing cameras in the courtroom and that states may adopt their own rules permitting such recording equipment. Note that this ruling does not require states to allow recording in the courtroom, it only says that states may choose to do so. Since this ruling, all fifty states have adopted rules on the topic, but the rules vary widely.
In some states, cameras and recording equipment are permitted in trial and appellate court proceedings, while in others recording is only allowed in appellate court proceedings. Most states give the court discretion to impose reasonable restrictions on the use of cameras and recording equipment in order to maintain the integrity of its proceedings and to otherwise serve the interests of justice.
For state-specific information about recording in courtrooms, see the State Law: Recording section. The federal appellate courts may adopt their own rules regarding cameras and recording equipment in the courtroom.
For information on your right of access to court proceedings, please consult the Access to Government Information section of the guide. Subscribe to our content! Follow us on Twitter.
We are looking for contributing authors with expertise in media law, intellectual property, First Amendment, and other related fields to join us as guest bloggers. If you are interested, please contact us for more details. These are just two examples of many.
Changes began with the live streaming of court proceedings in the UK Supreme Court. In certain proceedings in the Court of Appeal were selected for filming and broadcast by the media. In a pilot commenced in the Court of Appeal whereby the Court selects the hearings to be streamed.
The lower courts have never been filmed and broadcast in this way. The government has published a draft law which, if passed, will allow filming in the Crown Court for the first time. Filming will be allowed in relation to sentencing remarks only and no other court user, including witnesses, jurors or court staff, will be filmed.
0コメント