Avoiding A Court Of Public Opinion

---

 


Lawyers: Live broadcasts may risk undermining presumption of innocence
PETALING JAYA: Live broadcasts of court proceedings may promote transparency in corruption cases, but lawyers warn that they risk undermining the presumption of innocence and eroding public confidence in the judiciary.
Malaysian Bar president Mohamad Ezri Abdul Wahab stressed that any decision to allow live broadcasts must be made with utmost care.
“While openness is important, live broadcasts risk undermining the presumption of innocence when the public forms premature conclusions before the defence is fully presented.
“The responsibility to decide guilt and sentence lies with the judge under the law, not with public opinion,” he said.
He was responding to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) proposal to live-stream court proceedings in high-profile corruption cases to strengthen public confidence in the judicial process.
On Aug 27, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said stated that the proposal must first be weighed against existing legal provisions.
Mohamad Ezri added that international experience shows such broadcasts can easily turn proceedings into a “court of public opinion”, damaging the reputation of accused persons even if acquitted.
He warned that live-streaming could also erode public trust in the judiciary itself.
“Courts only render decisions after the full legal process is completed. Malaysia already has adequate transparency mechanisms – open judgments, clear reasoning and responsible media coverage. These principles can be upheld without compromising justice, the rights of the accused or judicial integrity,” Mohamad Ezri said.
Lawyer Tan Sri Azhar Azizan Harun noted that Malaysian courts, which are modelled on the British system, already practise “open justice”, allowing the public to attend hearings.
But in Britain, photographing or videotaping court proceedings is criminal contempt.
“A 1999 circular by the Chief Registrar of the Federal Court prohibited mobile phones in courts, and I don’t recall it ever being repealed. The rationale was that it disturbed proceedings,” he said.
Azhar argued that Malaysia is already lenient compared to Britain, where even photographing near courts was once forbidden.
Locally, photos of accused persons and witnesses are often taken, which he said could expose identities, invite social media commentary and disrupt trials.
He also warned of new risks: “Inside the courtroom, recordings could be altered with artificial intelligence. Judges, too, could be exposed, which may instil fear and undermine justice. Confidential documents and witnesses would also be exposed, raising risks of intimidation.”
Even court interpreters, he added, could face unfair criticism from “Internet armchair experts”, creating unnecessary polemics.
While acknowledging the good intentions behind live-streaming, Azhar said it could encourage lawyers or witnesses to “play to the cameras”.
“How can one name and shame the accused before conviction? We’ve seen cases where charges were later withdrawn, but reputations were already destroyed,” he said.
Citing the pandemic-era Zoom hearings, Azhar recalled how screen-recordings of trials were circulated, with netizens questioning legitimate practices like the use of English in court.
Such commentary, he argued, can interfere with justice.
“The public does not fully understand how proceedings work and may make unnecessary comments.
“If live-streaming is allowed, a fair trial may not be possible. Judges, being human, may feel pressure if the majority wants a guilty verdict.
“It would also be unfair to selectively broadcast certain cases. What criteria will decide which go live?
“Otherwise, some are named and shamed, while others are not. That in itself is unequal and discriminatory,” he said. - Star

---