“The right of a criminal defendant to a fair trial is absolute... The right to a fair trial is one to be enjoyed by the guilty as well as the innocent, for a defendant is presumed to be innocent until proved to be otherwise in a fairly conducted trial,” (Randall v. R. (Cayman Islands), 2002). The concept of fair trial is self-explanatory; it simply means an impartial trial that is executed to grant each party involved in a case their fundamental right which guarantees them a right to due. The scenario provided gives rise to issues of contempt of court, the sub judice rule and the code of ethics for media professionals. This essay will expound on the aforementioned issues, discuss whether or not the comments made by Speek Owt are licit and state the consequences to be faced by him and Scandal FM.
The law dealing with contempt in the Caribbean jurisdictions is generally found to be at common law, except in Guyana, where there is a Contempt of Court Act. Common law offences are established by the courts over the years where there lies no legislation, that is, they are derived from case law. According to Crone (2002), contempt of court refers to the improper interference with the administration of justice. Its origin lies within the rule of law, that the court must be free to decide on the matters before it, unhindered by outside influence. Publication of contempt can be either a criminal or civil contempt. At common law, there are three offences of criminal contempt. This includes interfering with pending or imminent court proceedings, contempt in the face of court and scandalizing the court. The criminal contempt offence committed by Speech Owt is interfering with pending or imminent court proceedings. It is concerned with the likel...
... middle of paper ...
...
Contempt of court & contempt of parliament. (n.d.). Unpublished raw data, Caribbean Institute of Media and Communications, University of the West Indies, Mona. Kingston, Jamaica.
Crone, T. (2002). Law and the media. (4th ed.). Woburn, MA: Focal Press.
Daley, V. (2014). Law of contempt [Online forum content]. Retrieved on March 12, 2014, from ourvle.mona.uwi.edu. POUS report. (2008). Forum on contempt of court and media publicity. London, England.
Press Association of Jamaica Code of ethics. (2005). Retrieved March 12, 2014, from http://www.pressassociationjamaica.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Code-for-Media- Practitioners.pdf
Disclosure: A Jamaican protocol. (n.d.). Retrieved March 13, 2014, from http://dpp.gov.jm/sites/default/files/pdf/Disclosure%20- %20A%20Jamaican%20Protocol.pdf
Publication bans have been a part of the Criminal Code since 1988. A publication ban is a court law that prohibits trial information from leaving the case. Since these bans were first introduced in Canada, they have become a very useful tool in Common Law. These bans have been frequently used over the years for many purposes including avoiding the risk of adverse consequences to participants and for more accurate trial procedures. Having publication bans are beneficial, in every which-way, than not. These bans contribute positively to the environment of law and most importantly, the society within. This essay will outline why the court should have the right to impose a publication ban in Canada. It will support the debate that if Canada wishes to build towards a reputation of having trials handled efficiently, then it should not change the nature of these publication bans. It will portray the importance of these bans through a thorough explanation of how the bans work, and two solid arguments of the cause on the society and environment. First, this essay will discuss basics of publication bans and how they work. Then, this essay will point out how publication bans contribute to trial fairness in the court. Finally, this essay will touch upon how publication bans protect victims and those involved in the trials.
Hariman, R. “Performing the Laws: Popular Trials and Social Knowledge” from Popular Trials: Rhetoric, Mass Media, and the Law, Robert Hariman, ed(s)., University of Alabama Press, 1990. 17-30.
“On the contrary, you’ll have to answer, gentlemen, for violently obstructing the course of justice”(417)
The merits of both the adversarial and inquisitorial system will be explored throughout this paper. The Australian rule of law best describes as all law should be applied equally and fairly. The five vital operations of the rule of law includes fairness, rationality, predictability, consistency, and impartially. The adversarial system adopts these operations by having a jury decide on the verdict and the judge being an impartial decision maker. In contrast, the inquisitorial system relies heavily on the judge. This can result in abusive power and bias of the judge when hearing evidence and delivering verdicts. The operations of the rule of law determine why the rule of law is best served by the adversarial system in Australia.
In America, every individual has the right to a fair trial, but how fair is the trial? When an individual is on trial, his or her life is on the line, which is decided by twelve strangers. However, who is to say that these individuals take their role seriously and are going to think critically about the case? Unfortunately, there is no way to monitor the true intentions of these individuals and what they feel or believe. In the movie, Twelve Angry Men, out of the twelve jurors’ only one was willing to make a stance against the others, even though the evidence seemed plausible against the defendant. Nevertheless, the justice system is crucial; however, it is needs be reformed.
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
Civilrights.org. (2002, April 13). Justice on trial. Washington, DC: Leadership Conference on Civil Rights/Leadership Conference on Civil RightsEducation Fund. Retrieved April 12, 2005, from Civilrights.org Web site: http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/cj/
The trial of O.J Simpson, an infamous case that had america glued to their Tv’s. Tensions were high as 11 months passed as the verdict was nearing. The case goes as following, O.J was accused of the murder of his ex wife Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman. On June 13, 1994 Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman were found dead around midnight near the entryway of Nicole’s apartment complex. The crime was heinous for the times and took America by storm. With O.J being a famous main suspect, the media wanted to give as much insight about the trial to the people watching at home and the first amendment gives them that right to gather intel. At first the media was not allowed to share what was happening in the trial. But later on, judge Ito later gave the media permission to cover the trial as long as the media does not disclose the insight of the grand jury. To coincide with this, the media wanted access to the preliminary hearings. Several news organizations requested access to photographs of the crime and transcripts of conferences held in the judge’s office. A lot of this information was sensitive material that was still being decided upon whether to reveal to the jury, but the media still wanted to have
The use of evidence and witnesses is a mechanism in which the law attempts to balance the rights of victims and offenders in the criminal trial process. Evidence used in court are bound by the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and have to be lawfully obtained by the police. The use of evidence and witnesses balance the victims’ rights to a great extent. However, it is ineffective in balancing the rights of offenders. The law has been progressive in protecting the rights of victims in the use and collection of evidence and witness statements. The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Domestic Violence Complainants) Bill 2014, which amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, passed the NSW Legislative Council on 18 November 2014. The amendment enables victims of
A jury is a panel of citizens, selected randomly from the electoral role, whose job it is to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. The Jury Act 1977 (NSW) stipulates the purpose of juries and some of the legal aspects, such as verdicts and the right of the defence and prosecution to challenge jurors. The jury system is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society as members of the community ultimately decide whether the person is guilty or innocent. The creation of the Jury Amendment Act 2006 (NSW) enabled the criminal trial process to better represent the standards of society as it allowed majority verdicts of 11-1 or 10-2, which also allowed the courts to be more resource efficient. Majority verdicts still ensure that a just outcome is reached as they are only used if there is a hung jury and there has been considerable deliberation. However, the role of the media is often criticized in relation to ensuring that the jurors remain unbiased as highlighted in the media article “Independent Juries” (SMH, 2001), and the wide reporting of R v Gittany 2013 supports the arguments raised in the media article. Hence, the jury system is moderately effective in reflecting the moral and ethical standards of society, as it resource efficient and achieves just outcomes, but the influence of the media reduces the effectiveness.
From conception in the Magna Carta 1215, juries have become a sacred constitutional right in the UK’s justice system, with the independence of the jury from the judge established in the R v. Bushel’s case 1670. Although viewed by some as a bothersome and an unwelcomed duty, by others it is perceived to be a prized and inalienable right, and as Lord Devlin comments ‘ trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution : it is the lamp that shows freedom lives.’ It is arguable that juries bring a ‘unique legitimacy’ to the judicial process, but recently it seems that their abolition may be the next step forward for the UK in modernising and making the judicial system more effective. Many argue that jurors lack the expertise and knowledge to make informed verdicts, along with views that external forces are now influencing juries more heavily, especially after the emergence of the internet and the heavy presence it now has on our lives. Yet, corruption within the jury system is also internal, in that professionals and academics may ‘steamroll’ others during deliberations about the case. These factors, coupled with the exorbitant costs that come along with jury trials creates a solid case for the abolition of juries. On the other hand though, the jury system carries many loyal supporters who fear its abolition may be detrimental to society. Academics and professionals such as John Morris QC state that; 'it may well not be the perfect machine, but it is a system that has stood the test of time.’ Juries ensure fair-practice within the courtroom, and although controversial, they have the power to rule on moral and social grounds, rather than just legal pre...
Arguments For and Against Juries The right to a trial by jury is a tradition that goes right to the the heart of the British legal system. It is a right fiercely fought for. and fiercely defended at those times when its powers have been seen to be under threat as those backing reforms are finding. The tradition of being "tried by a jury of one's peers" probably has its origins in Anglo Saxon custom, which dictated that an accused man could be acquitted if enough people came forward to swear his innocence.
“ ….Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system….Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.” (Baude, 21).
Fairchild, H. & Cowan, G (1997). Journal of Social Issues. The O.J. Simpson Trial: Challenges to Science and Society.
Contempt of court was instigated by the notion that the court administration must be liberated to adjudicate on those matters before it, unimpeded by any outside influences including that may prevent the flow of justice. It seeks to punish those whose conduct that tends to obstruct, prejudice or abuse the administration of justice, whether in a particular case or in general (Bradley and Ewing 1993). Therefore, anything which plainly tends to create disdain of the authority of the courts of justice such as the open insult or the resistance to the judges who preside there or disobedient to their orders is deemed as contempt of court. It may be categorized as civil or criminal contempt. The law governing contempt of court is found in the Contempt of court Act 1981 and in common law. In the Caribbean, the law that supports contempt of court is a generally is common law. Common law articulates the ideas and judicial theory of one of the greatest justices of the Supreme Court. (Holmes, 2009). In essence, common law is fundamentally reliant on previous decisions made in judicial pronouncements. The contempt ...