Combined Artistic Productions CC and Another v Graham and Others (61790/2012) [2016] ZAGPPHC 601 (11 March 2016)

Combined Artistic Productions CC and Another v Graham and Others (61790/2012) [2016] ZAGPPHC 601 (11 March 2016)

The court found that the applicants' request to film and broadcast the proceedings was justified by the public interest in open justice and the right to freedom of expression. The respondents' fears of future distortion were speculative and unsupported by evidence of actual harm or distortion in previous broadcasts. The court held that any future harm could be addressed through legal remedies such as interdicts or damages, and that the interests of the public in being informed outweighed the respondents' rights to dignity in this context. The court imposed detailed conditions to ensure the filming and broadcasting would not interfere with the proceedings or the dignity of the court, and...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 601
Parties
Applicant: Combined Artistic Productions CC; Applicant: Electronic Media Network Limited; Respondent: Jennifer Graham; Respondent: Matthew Graham; Respondent: Law Society of the Northern Provinces; Respondent: Ronald Bobroff & Partners Inc; Respondent: Ronald Bobroff; Respondent: Darren Bobroff
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 March 2016
Case Number
61790/2012
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief Permitting Filming and Broadcasting of Court Proceedings in a Pending Disciplinary Application.
Outcome
Application granted. The applicants are permitted to film and broadcast the proceedings in the main application, subject to detailed conditions. Costs awarded against the fourth to sixth respondents, jointly and severally.
Judges
Tuchten
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Freedom of Expression, Broadcasting of Court Proceedings, Dignity, Interdict, Disciplinary Proceedings
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Open Justice Freedom of Expression Broadcasting of Court Proceedings Dignity Interdict Disciplinary Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Combined Artistic Productions CC

Applicant

Electronic Media Network Limited

Applicant

Jennifer Graham

Respondent

Matthew Graham

Respondent

Law Society of the Northern Provinces

Respondent

Ronald Bobroff & Partners Inc

Respondent

Ronald Bobroff

Respondent

Darren Bobroff

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief Permitting Filming and Broadcasting of Court Proceedings in a Pending Disciplinary Application.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be permitted to film and broadcast the proceedings in the main application.
  2. 2 Whether the rights of the respondents to dignity and a fair hearing outweigh the public interest in open justice and freedom of expression.
  3. 3 Whether the risk of future distortion of broadcast material justifies a ban on filming.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' request to film and broadcast the proceedings was justified by the public interest in open justice and the right to freedom of expression. The respondents' fears of future distortion were speculative and unsupported by evidence of actual harm or distortion in previous broadcasts. The court held that any future harm could be addressed through legal remedies such as interdicts or damages, and that the interests of the public in being informed outweighed the respondents' rights to dignity in this context. The court imposed detailed conditions to ensure the filming and broadcasting would not interfere with the proceedings or the dignity of the court, and...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The applicants are permitted to film and broadcast the proceedings in the main application, subject to detailed conditions. Costs awarded against the fourth to sixth respondents, jointly and severally.

Orders

  • Time limits and service rules are dispensed with and any non-compliance by the applicants is condoned.
  • Two authorised representatives of the first applicant may film the proceedings (including audio recordings) in the main application under case no 61790/12 held on 14, 15 and 16 March 2016 and any subsequent proceedings.