Media 24 Limited v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others, In re: S v Van Breda (5027/2017) [2017] ZAWCHC 36 (27 March 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZAWCHC 36
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
- Panel
- Desai
- Case number
- 5027/2017
More details
- Court
- Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
- Panel
- Desai
- Case number
- 5027/2017
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that media access to the Van Breda criminal proceedings is permissible in the interests of open justice, provided that strict guidelines are followed to minimize disruption and protect the privacy of witnesses, especially Marli van Breda. The order allows for limited photography and video recording before and after court sessions, and for stationary, unattended video cameras during proceedings, subject to court direction. The court imposed an absolute prohibition on photographing or recording Marli van Breda without prior written consent, and barred close-up recordings of bench discussions and privileged communications. Exhibits may not be photographed or published unless expressly permitted. The parties retain the right to seek amendments to the order as circumstances require.
Court disposition
Application granted in part; media access permitted subject to strict conditions.
Orders
- Applicant may take still photographs and video footage in court for 15 minutes before and after daily proceedings.
- Applicant may install two stationary, unattended video cameras to record or broadcast proceedings, subject to court direction.
- No photographs, audio recordings, or video footage of Marli van Breda may be taken without prior written consent of the third respondent.
- Absolute bar on audio recordings or close-up photography of bench discussions and privileged communications.
- No exhibits may be photographed, videotaped, or published unless expressly permitted by the court.
- Parties may approach the court for variation or amendment of the order as warranted.
- Reasons for the order to be furnished in due course.
02
Material facts
Parties
Media 24 Limited
ApplicantNational Director of Public Prosecutions
RespondentHenri van Breda
RespondentAdv Louise Buikman SC
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Interlocutory Order Regarding Media Access
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether media may record and broadcast criminal proceedings in the Van Breda trial.
- 02
What limitations should be imposed to protect privacy and dignity of witnesses and parties.
- 03
Whether the interests of justice permit media access subject to conditions.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that open justice requires that the public be allowed access to court proceedings through media coverage, including still photography and video broadcasting, subject to reasonable limitations to avoid disruption and protect privacy.
- Respondent
- The respondents contended that unrestricted media access could prejudice the fair trial rights of the accused and the privacy of witnesses, particularly Marli van Breda, and that strict conditions should be imposed to safeguard these interests.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
Open justice is a foundational principle of South African law, but it must be balanced against the rights to privacy and a fair trial.
- 02
SABC Ltd v Thatcher 2005 (4) SA 1 (SCA)
Media access to court proceedings may be permitted subject to reasonable conditions to prevent undue disruption and protect vulnerable parties.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that media access to the Van Breda criminal proceedings is permissible in the interests of open justice, provided that strict guidelines are followed to minimize disruption and protect the privacy of witnesses, especially Marli van Breda. The order allows for limited photography and video recording before and after court sessions, and for stationary, unattended video cameras during proceedings, subject to court direction. The court imposed an absolute prohibition on photographing or recording Marli van Breda without prior written consent, and barred close-up recordings of bench discussions and privileged communications. Exhibits may not be photographed or published unless expressly permitted. The parties retain the right to seek amendments to the order as circumstances require.
Obiter and limits
- The court emphasized that the principle of open justice does not override the need to protect vulnerable witnesses from media exposure.
- The order is provisional and may be varied upon application by any party should circumstances change.
Court disposition
Application granted in part; media access permitted subject to strict conditions.
- Applicant may take still photographs and video footage in court for 15 minutes before and after daily proceedings.
- Applicant may install two stationary, unattended video cameras to record or broadcast proceedings, subject to court direction.
- No photographs, audio recordings, or video footage of Marli van Breda may be taken without prior written consent of the third respondent.
- Absolute bar on audio recordings or close-up photography of bench discussions and privileged communications.
- No exhibits may be photographed, videotaped, or published unless expressly permitted by the court.
- Parties may approach the court for variation or amendment of the order as warranted.
- Reasons for the order to be furnished in due course.
Source and reliance status
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Order
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
Case no: 5027/2017
Before His Lordship the Honourable Mr Justice Desai
On Monday, 27 March 2017.
In the matter between:
MEDIA 24
LIMITED
Applicant
and
THE
NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC
PROSECUTIONS
First Respondent
HENRI
VAN
BREDA
Second Respondent
ADV
LOUISE BUIKMAN SC
Third Respondent
In re:
THE
STATE
VAN
BREDA
Accused
ORDER
HAVING heard Counsel for the Parties and having read the papers filed of record IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Subject to what is ordered in paragraph 5 below:-
1.2. For 15 minutes before the commencement of Court each day, and after the adjournment of proceedings, the applicant may take still photographs in court, and video footage in court;
1.3. During the sitting of the Court, the applicant is permitted to install two video cameras to record and or broadcast the proceedings, with the following guidelines:
1.3.1. The cameras shall be set up by not later than 15 minutes before the commencement of proceedings every day, and shall be removed by not later than half an hour after the adjournment of proceedings at the end of the day;
1.3.2. The video cameras shall be stationary, erected on tripods, and shall not be attended by a person;
1.3.3. The video cameras shall be left to record and broadcast the proceedings, and shall be located in such positions as the Court may direct from time to time;
1.3.4. The cameras shall be located discreetly to cause as little intrusion in the proceedings of the Court as possible.
2. None of the arrangements above shall be extended to Marli van Breda, in respect of whom no photographs, audio recordings or video footage shall be taken before, during or after the hearings, whether she is present as a witness, spectator or in any other capacity, save with the prior written consent of the Third Respondent;
3. There is an absolute bar on:
3.1 audio recordings or close-up photography of bench discussions; and
3.2 audio recordings or close-up photography of communications between legal representatives or between clients and their legal representatives;
4. No exhibits shall be photographed, videotaped or published by the media, unless expressly permitted by the Court.
5. The parties are at liberty to approach the Court for any variation or amendment of this order as the occasion warrants.
6. Reasons for this order to be furnished in due course.
BY
ORDER OF COURT
_______
REGISTRAR
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.