Case Commentaries
| Author | Jeremy Gans |
| DOI | 10.1350/ijep.2014.18.3.457 |
| Published date | 01 July 2014 |
| Date | 01 July 2014 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
CASE COMMENTARIES
CASE COMMENTARIES
CASE COMMENTARIES
Broadcasting of trial—South Africa
3. MultiChoice and Primedia are permitted to broadcast the audio
recording of the entire trial in live transmissions, delayed broadcasts
and/or extracts of the proceedings.
4. MultiChoice and Primedia are permitted to broadcast the
audio-visual recording of the following portions of the trial only, in
live transmissions, delayed broadcasts and/or extracts from the
proceedings:
4.1 Opening argument of the state and accused;
4.2 Any interlocutory applications during the trial;
4.3 The evidence of all experts called to give evidence for the state,
excluding evidence of the accused and his witnesses;
4.4 The evidence of any police officer or former police officer in relation to
the crime scene;
4.5 The evidence of all other witnesses for the state unless such a witness
does not consent to such recording and broadcasting and the presiding
judge rules that no such recording and broadcasting can take place;
4.6 Closing argument of the state and the accused;
4.7 Delivery of the judgment on the merits; and
4.8 Delivery of the judgment on sentence, if applicable.
The above orders were made by the North Gauteng High Court in Multichoice (Propri-
etary) Ltd vNational Prosecuting Authority, In Re; S vPistorius [2014] ZAGPPHC 37.
The matter concerns a very high-profile criminal trial involving the shooting of
one celebrity by another. The applicants included broadcast media groups who
sought to televise the proceedings. The DPP reached a compromise with the appli-
cants, which the accused opposed. Judge President Malambo observed:
doi:10.1350/ijep.2014.18.3.457
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF (2014) 18 E&P 267–274 267
To continue reading
Request your trial