/ 18 May 2007

Court sides with press freedom in baby Jordan case

It was acceptable for a television documentary on the baby Jordan-Leigh Norton murder case to be broadcast without the director of public prosecutions (DPP) viewing it in advance, the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled on Friday.

The Bloemfontein court delivered judgement in an appeal concerning a documentary that was made by e.tv on the murder case in Cape Town.

The accused in the case, Dina Rodrigues, and her co-accused were convicted earlier this month of the 2005 murder. The Cape Town High Court is expected to pronounce sentence on June 4.

However, before the case had started, the DPP insisted on viewing the documentary before it was broadcast in order to satisfy himself that it would not prejudice the trial.

The broadcaster refused, and the DPP applied for and was granted an interdict by the Cape Town High Court forbidding broadcast of the documentary.

Thereafter, e.tv appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The appeal case was eventually overtaken by the start of the trial, and the DPP withdrew his application.

With the DPP’s objection withdrawn, the documentary was broadcast and e.tv later asked that its appeal to the Bloemfontein court be withdrawn on the grounds that it would have no practical effect.

However, the appeal court found the case raised important questions of law on which there was little authority and which were bound to arise again.

”With the benefit we have had of full argument, I think we should deal with those questions not only to resolve what was contentious between the parties, but also for future guidance,” Appeals Judge Robert Nugent said in Friday’s judgement.

The judgement held that a prohibition on publication of material relating to forthcoming criminal proceedings is permitted only if it can be shown that the publication might cause substantial prejudice to the trial and that there is a real risk that the prejudice will occur.

”I fear that he [the DPP] must do what any person must do in similar circumstances: he must expect that freedom will not be abused until he has adequate grounds for believing the contrary,” said Nugent. ”But, he may not require the press to demonstrate that it will act lawfully as a precondition to the exercise of the freedom to publish in the absence of a valid law that accords him that right.”

The order of the Cape Town High Court was set aside.

The appeal judgement will have no effect on the murder case. — Sapa