Multichoice (Proprietary) Limited and Others v National Prosecuting Authority and Another (10193/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 37; [2014] 2 All SA 446 (GP); 2014 (1) SACR 589 (GP) (25 February 2014)

Multichoice (Proprietary) Limited and Others v National Prosecuting Authority and Another (10193/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 37; [2014] 2 All SA 446 (GP); 2014 (1) SACR 589 (GP) (25 February 2014)

The court held that the constitutional rights to freedom of expression and open justice must be balanced against the accused's right to a fair trial. Broadcasting of criminal proceedings is permissible, provided adequate safeguards are in place to prevent prejudice to the accused and witnesses. The court found that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 37
Parties
Applicant: Multichoice (Proprietary) Limited; Applicant: Combined Artistic Productions CC; Applicant: Primedia Broadcasting, a Division of Primedia (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Media 24 Limited; Applicant: Times Media Group Limited; Applicant: Independent News and Media SA Limited; Applicant: e.Tv Pty Limited; Applicant: e.Sat Pty Limited; Respondent: National Prosecuting Authority; Respondent: Oscar Leonard Pistorius
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 February 2014
Case Number
10193/2014
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Permission to Broadcast Criminal Trial Proceedings Prior to Commencement of Trial
Outcome
Application granted in part: audio broadcast of the entire trial permitted; limited audio-visual and photographic coverage allowed subject to specified conditions; no order as to costs.
Judges
Mlambo JP
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Open Justice Principle, Fair Trial Right, Broadcasting of Court Proceedings, Section 173 Inherent Powers, Balancing of Competing Rights
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Freedom of Expression Open Justice Principle Fair Trial Right Broadcasting of Court Proceedings Section 173 Inherent Powers Balancing of Competing Rights

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Multichoice (Proprietary) Limited

Applicant

Combined Artistic Productions CC

Applicant

Primedia Broadcasting, a Division of Primedia (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Media 24 Limited

Applicant

Times Media Group Limited

Applicant

Independent News and Media SA Limited

Applicant

e.Tv Pty Limited

Applicant

e.Sat Pty Limited

Applicant

National Prosecuting Authority

Respondent

Oscar Leonard Pistorius

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Permission to Broadcast Criminal Trial Proceedings Prior to Commencement of Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether media applicants should be permitted to broadcast the criminal trial of Oscar Pistorius via audio, audio-visual, and photographic means.
  2. 2 Whether such broadcasting infringes the accused's right to a fair trial under the Constitution.
  3. 3 How the court should balance the competing constitutional rights of freedom of expression, open justice, and fair trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the constitutional rights to freedom of expression and open justice must be balanced against the accused's right to a fair trial. Broadcasting of criminal proceedings is permissible, provided adequate safeguards are in place to prevent prejudice to the accused and witnesses. The court found that audio coverage of the entire trial does not pose the same risks as audio-visual coverage and should be allowed. Audio-visual and photographic coverage is permitted for certain portions of the trial, excluding the testimony of the accused and his witnesses, unless they consent. The presiding judge retains discretion to withdraw or modify broadcast permissions if the rights to...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part: audio broadcast of the entire trial permitted; limited audio-visual and photographic coverage allowed subject to specified conditions; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • MultiChoice and Primedia are permitted to set up equipment for video and audio recording and/or transmission of permitted portions of the trial, subject to technical specifications.
  • Three unobtrusive, remotely controlled cameras may be installed in the courtroom; no extreme close-ups; no recording of confidential communications or bench discussions; cameras deactivated during breaks.