Name:
Tutor:
Course:
Date:
Court Reporting 1: Access, Restrictions & Disclosure of Sources
The tenet of open justice is significant within the Australian legal framework. It makes sure that courts are free to the community and that the persons that exercise their privilege to be visible in the room are at liberty to convey their observations. Accordingly, the conduct of litigations in public comprises a fundamental characteristic of an Australian justice court. There is the absence of innate authority to prohibit the public from court access. Usually, most people do not apply their privileges to be present at judicial proceedings. Instead, most individuals concentrate on the media as their main sources of information concerning the events that occurred within the courtroom. As a result, the media is the only entity that exploits the doctrine of open justice. Its proxy reporting responsibility gains regard as an important aspect of the principle. Nonetheless, it is vital to consider some of the concerns involving this tenet. These include the significance of open justice and its endorsement in Australia, the access of court documents and divulgence of the sources of information.
The need for vigilance asserts the significance of the open justice principle. Typically, the desire to exercise observation and awareness originates from the natural predisposition towards the erosion of the common tenet. Additionally, the desire also arises from the need for exceptions to develop by accumulation as they undergo application by similarity to the current cases. Based on this, the reason behind the importance of open justice is indeed evident. Accordingly, the reasons provided enable one to cease forgetting the accessibility of proceedings via a complete public inquiry. Consequently, the doctrine of open justice is significant since the social temperament of the proceedings dissuades improper behavior with respect to the court. Moreover, the tenet is important since it sustains the confidence of the public in the direction and passing of justice. From this assertion, the principle enables the public to understand that justice is impartial.
Even though the principle of open justice is significant to the Australian legal structure, various factors restrict it from undergoing complete implementation. These factors comprise issues such as the formulation of non-publication or court suppression directives, closed court powers and the formulation of orders restricting the delivery of information. Based on these factors, there are certain methods that the Australian courts use in promoting open justice. One of these ways is trough legislation. In order to ensure that the principle undergoes complete implementation, courts have focused on formulating laws concerning this subject. These laws or acts focus on promoting open justice by regulating certain areas that may restrict the public or media from accessing court proceedings. One of these areas involves the access of court documents by the members of the public and the press.
Accordingly, allowing the public and the press to access court manuscripts is significant towards endorsing the tenet of open justice. Accordingly, such legislations allow any individual to gain access to the information present within courts. The information that is liable for viewing by the press and community fits the description of open-access data. Such data may comprise documents such as affidavits, pleadings and statements present in verdicts, court orders and evidence. Undeniably, this is an effective way of promoting open justice within the Australian legal organization. Another way of ensuring the promotion of open justice involves the elimination of contact details for individuals making statements during court proceedings. Usually, people providing information during inquiries leave personal details such as contact names and details as well as personal recognition information such as debit or credit card numbers, telephone numbers, social security numbers, birth dates and numbers for financial accounts. This way, the public will be able to access information without fear of tracking.
Irrefutably, the principle of open justice allows the media to access and reveal information from court proceedings to the public. Regardless of the motives possessed by the media, the opportunity to report such information occurs from a doctrine that is essential to the public and the manner of government. As a result, every court is accessible to the public. However, since a limited number of the public possess the time or even the tendency towards attending court proceedings, the doctrine of open justice allows the media to report the circumstances occurring during the court inquiries. Based on this, it is possible for a journalist to access court documents. However, there are disparate ways of acquiring access to such information. Usually, the reason for this is to ensure that certain cases, which are sensitive to the public, undergo confidentiality. This provides the court with the opportunity to avert negative instances in the public that may originate from the provision of the information to the community.
One of the ways in which journalist access to court information is possible is through reimbursement. Usually, any court regardless of its jurisdiction is entitled to provide information upon request by any member of the public. However, for this to happen, the respective person is required to pay a certain fee in order to obtain access. In this respect, the journalist will pay a certain amount of the prescribed charge to the respective. After this, the registrar will provide the journalist with a duplicate of the order or the verdict unless advised otherwise by the particular court. In addition, the registrar may offer a non-party with a duplicate of the required information if the non-party exhibits satisfactory interest concerning the court proceedings. However, the court requires considering certain issues in order to allow access. For instance, the court may consider prematurity of the evidence. At this point, the principle will diminutively apply as basis for allowing the accessibility of documents.
A concealment order restricts access and release of sources of information from the Supreme Court by the media to the public. Usually, the concealment order bars access to and release of information sources within the interlocutory phase of the inquiry. At this point, it is necessary for the media to avoid attempts concerning the access of such vital information. Accordingly, the Supreme Court provides certain circumstances that restrict the accessibility and conveyance of information. Such circumstances are usually in favor of the plaintiffs, defendants and the members of the public. In this case, if the media officer names the witness regardless of the concealment order, the journalist will face charges of contempt of court and pay compensatory damages or serve a sentence. Nonetheless, the journalist can avail information sources if he or she possesses access to a pair of affidavits within the court’s records.
In conclusion, the principle of open justice comprises an essential part of the court system in Australia. This is because it allows the public to access information conveyed during court proceedings. Accordingly, this tenet provides a platform for determining the impartiality of the Australian justice system during the respective litigations. Regardless of the issues facing the practice of open justice, the courts utilize certain mechanisms, such as legislations, in order to facilitate this principle. Furthermore, the doctrine also enables the media to access information since it is in the best position to avail it to the public. However, the courts also provide directives that ensure probable accessibility of information. Such directives are important in order to protect the interests of the inquiry and that of the public.