Journal Archive
Their major concern would be: 'Am I going to be misrepresented
because only a portion of my evidence is going to be shown on television?
'
Swearing the Oath ... to Camera
by Brett Williams
Australian police officers may soon have to testify in courts before national television audiences.
It's a concept which already has support among politicians and the legal fraternity; but police remain divided on the issue.
One opponent of courtroom television is the South Australia Police Department's legal research officer, Senior Sergeant Frank McAvaney. While he sees cameras in courts as a certainty, he also sees "real difficulties" if trials are broadcast.
"There's a number of areas which would be of concern to police," he says. "Their major concern would be: 'Am I going to be misrepresented because only a portion of my evidence is going to be shown on television? What effect is that going to have on my family, friends and relatives? Will they suspect that allegations being put to me might be true?'"
McAvaney believes that unless television viewers see the entire examination-in-chief, cross- examination and re-examination of police witnesses, along with magistrates' rulings on their credibility, they (viewers) can form only a distorted view.
"(And) the media tend to look for distorted views," he says. "They look for something to sensationalize."
Of course, criticism of television editing procedures is nothing new to Channel Seven (Adelaide) news director, Chris Willis. As a forthright advocate of courtroom television, Willis recognizes it as an age-old debate. "Somebody will always say, 'Unless you do the whole thing, it can't possibly be reasonable,'" he explains.
"(But) things would have to edited, there's no question about that. You have to do that, simply because of time constraints.
"We, the media, are supposed to operate on the basis that we do provide a fair and accurate interpretation (and) not necessarily the detailed interpretation.
"There would have to be an element of trust there, I guess. I'm pretty sure we could convince people that we would do it fairly and reasonably."
Police Association of South Australia president, Peter Alexander, accepts Willis's assurance of fair and reasonable reporting. None the less, he fears the potential for police input to be edited at the whim of commercial-network operators. He believes in more official means of ensuring balanced coverage.
"You have to have legislative or judicial control of that type of thing because the most well-intentioned editor could cause enormous problems," he says. "I'd hate to see our members - who are in there (court) every day of the week - subjected to unbalanced reporting. It would be an injustice to our people and would also weaken confidence in the police, and I'd hate to see that happen by a focus on the sensational."
Police officers already have much to contend with in the courtroom: hostile defence counsellors determined to impugn their integrity; grim-faced judges assessing the worth of their testimonies; and prying eyes from public galleries. Feared by some experts is that an electronic media foray into the courtroom may be the ultimate distraction.
South Australia's chief justice, John Doyle, has just such a fear. He's reported to be "concerned (about) what impact the presence of cameras would have on trial participants" and to have "heard anecdotal evidence from the US that ... 'people are being affected by the presence of the camera' " (The Advertiser, 11.10.96).
Chris Willis rejects any assertion that cameras would be-distracting. He says the movements of stenographers and sketch artists around courtrooms would be more obtrusive than a solitary camera positioned on a tripod.
"It doesn't move and doesn't make a sound," he says. "It's not people running around the court taking shots, you just have a camera positioned in a particular place."
Frank McAvaney, however, remembers his time as a prosecution training officer when he video taped trainee police prosecutors trying cases. He maintains a vivid recollection of their response to subsequent viewings.
"I found that that had as much of a traumatic effect on them as having a magistrate sitting up there criticizing their performance," he says.
While police who serve the courts as prosecutors or witnesses may be traumatised by televised court proceedings, McAvaney estimates that half of the Police Department's prosecutors would support the concept. But he also suggests that up to 90 per cent of operational police officers would be opposed.
Peter Alexander, however, doesn't see the scrutiny of television cameras as a problem for police officers; he's supremely confident that they would cope. He says they're already routinely scrutinized; and have always emerged "very well indeed" from cross-examination by "the best legal minds in town".
Television networks are quite open about their desire to broadcast court proceedings. But are their motives for gaining access to the courtroom exactly what they say they are?
In support of the concept, Chris Willis speaks of democracy under the Westminster system of government; public institutions being open to all; and the people's "right to know".
"The police are one of the most important institutions in our community," he says. "The more open they can be about what they're doing the better off they are."
And Willis denies that televised court proceedings would necessarily boost network ratings. Moreover, he says he doesn't regard it as entertainment and insists that it's all about providing information.
But the networks' motivations are seen quite differently by Peter Alexander. "They're commercial operators and it's all about ratings - let's not pretend it's anything else," he says. "Since time began, people are obviously entertained by the trial system."
The Police Association is yet to form its policy on televised court proceedings. But Alexander's confidence in police officers' ability to perform under pressure is such that he holds few other concerns. And what may delight television networks is that he doesn't regard the concept as all negative.
"Police officers would be seen by the community doing what they are good at: presenting evidence after investigation," he says. "The public would realize how difficult it is to get evidence admitted and would see the amount of evidence that is ruled to be inadmissible, and all of the frustrations that go with presenting evidence. In terms of educating the community it would be good - it could be a positive."
But if plying their craft in courts was to become regular television viewing, would police officers need re-training? Frank McAvaney believes they would; and he sees broadcasters' involvement as appropriate.
Chris Willis, however, would "strongly counsel against" re-training if it was considered by SAPOL (South Australia Police) management. "It would be detrimental," he says. "What you'd be looking for is someone who is a picture of how the court works."
And if, regardless of advice to the contrary, SAPOL was to pursue re-training, Willis says he would oppose media involvement with equal vigour. "It leads to everyone just getting a little bit too close," he says. "I think that can lead to a blurring of what we (police and the media) should all be doing."
Both the Police Association and the Seven network are quite prepared to discuss televised court proceedings. Chris Willis expects that such discussions would be "pretty vibrant" but doesn't anticipate an all- out clash. He says his argument would be that courtroom television would enhance the image of justice and, in so doing, enhance the image of police.
While the experts continue to debate the issue, Peter Alexander remains ever- philosophical. "You just don't think that these things will change, but, of course, they just evolve," he says. "We have to accept that, with modern technology, it's probably going to be there whether we like it or not."
[End]
