Media 24 Limited v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others, In re: S v Van Breda (5027/2017) [2017] ZAWCHC 35 (4 April 2017)

Media 24 Limited v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others, In re: S v Van Breda (5027/2017) [2017] ZAWCHC 35 (4 April 2017)

The court held that the applicant's right to freedom of expression and the public's right to open justice are central constitutional values. Concerns about witness intimidation and prejudice to the accused were found to be speculative and manageable, especially given existing recording practices and the realities of modern media dissemination. The court found that a blanket refusal to permit recording would constitute an unjustified limitation of Section 16 rights, failing to meet the requirements of Section 36. The order granted allows for adaptation if specific prejudice arises, thus balancing competing interests and minimally impairing any party's rights.

Citation
[2017] ZAWCHC 35
Parties
Applicant: Media 24 Limited; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Henri Van Breda; Respondent: Adv Louise Buikman SC
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 April 2017
Case Number
5027/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Media Access to Criminal Trial
Outcome
Application granted; media permitted to install video cameras and record proceedings, subject to variation if justified.
Judges
S Desai
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Open Justice, Media Access to Court, Fair Trial Rights, Broadcasting of Proceedings, Limitation of Rights
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Civil Procedure Freedom of Expression Open Justice Media Access to Court Fair Trial Rights Broadcasting of Proceedings +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Media 24 Limited

Applicant

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Henri Van Breda

Respondent

Adv Louise Buikman SC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Media Access to Criminal Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether media should be permitted to install video cameras and record criminal trial proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the presence of recording equipment unjustifiably limits the fair trial rights of the accused and the interests of witnesses.
  3. 3 How to balance the constitutional rights to freedom of expression and open justice against potential prejudice to trial participants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant's right to freedom of expression and the public's right to open justice are central constitutional values. Concerns about witness intimidation and prejudice to the accused were found to be speculative and manageable, especially given existing recording practices and the realities of modern media dissemination. The court found that a blanket refusal to permit recording would constitute an unjustified limitation of Section 16 rights, failing to meet the requirements of Section 36. The order granted allows for adaptation if specific prejudice arises, thus balancing competing interests and minimally impairing any party's rights.

Court Disposition

Application granted; media permitted to install video cameras and record proceedings, subject to variation if justified.

Orders

  • Media 24 Limited is permitted to install two video cameras in the courtroom and record the proceedings.
  • The order may be varied at any stage if any witness, on good cause, requests that their evidence not be broadcast.