Murphy’s Logic: Let justice be seen

“Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.”

It’s been 100 years since Lord Hewart, the Lord Chief Justice of England, first spoke those now often-quoted words. He asserted judges cannot hear cases in which their impartiality might be reasonably questioned. That was of course true then and it’s true now.

But today, justice needs to be “seen to be done,” in other ways.

With relatively few exceptions, courtrooms are public places. Section 11 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees a “fair and public hearing” for those charged with an offence. Courtrooms usually include galleries from which members of the general public are able to witness justice being done.

In practice, very few people ever do.

Journalists are free to report on court proceedings, but only with limitations imposed in specific cases, and with the more general restriction they not use cameras and recording devices. It is time to reconsider that.

The public’s right to witness court proceedings in person, which was established centuries ago, should be expanded to include the right to watch remotely. Today’s discreet technology renders invalid the old argument that large cameras and bright lights would distract from the proceedings.

That’s not to suggest there ought to be cameras in every courtroom for every case; there will always be legitimate reasons not to televise cases, including lack of public interest. But in the most important and high profile cases, cameras should be permitted.

In the U.S., which is much more liberal about this than we are, Donald Trump is being tried without cameras and already his supporters are questioning whether he’s getting a fair trial.

The time has come to realize that in today’s skeptical world, in order for justice to be seen to be done, it must first be seen.