—The executive arm of government — elected, employed, hereditary — should not have the right to hide the operation of justice from the people.
Reporting and opinion by Mathew Carr
May 14, 2023 — Some of the key sections (full doc below) and note bolded sentences — note my request near bottom + extra comment:
(E) In respect of each request made by an individual who is not in England and Wales, the court has taken account of the open justice principle and the international interest in the proceedings, including in particular from Australia (given that the appellant is a national of Australia) and from the United States of America (given that the respondent is the Government of the USA). The court has also taken into account that some of those who would wish to view the hearing are unable to travel to London. The court has also had regard to the numbers of journalists who will be able to attend the court in person and the further number who will be able to attend by remote link from within England and Wales.
The court has also had regard to the information provided by each person requesting access, including any reasons as to why it is said to be in the interests of justice to permit remote attendance.
The court notes the suggestions made by some applicants that the proceedings should be broadcast or live-streamed to enable those abroad to watch the proceedings. However, the court does not have the power to broadcast the proceedings, and a live-streaming direction may not be made for streaming to the internet (only for streaming to premises that have been authorised by the Lord Chancellor): section 85A(3) Courts Act 2003.
(F) The court has, (save where it has otherwise stated), concluded that it would not be in the interests of justice to permit remote observation from outside England and Wales. That is because it is satisfied that the open justice principle has been fully reflected by the access that has been provided which will include journalists from England and Wales and Australia and the USA (and elsewhere), and because the court does not have jurisdiction to enforce its order outside England and Wales.
(G) Each person requesting access is to be informed of the court’s decision and the reasons for that decision. Otherwise, the schedule to this order is to remain confidential in order to protect the privacy of those who have requested access to the proceedings.
(H) It is not in the interests of justice to consider further requests for remote attendance unless those requests are made in accordance with paragraph 5 of this order.
CarrZee comment: Court should be given the right to broadcast decisions, orders and hearings. The executive arm of government — elected, employed, hereditary — should not have the right to hide the operation of justice from the people. Executive and judicial arms of government should be kept separate where possible.
I suggested the court allow broadcasting here:
I believe the structure of Assange’s extradition trial (no jury) goes against the Magna Carta, no matter how the USA and UK governments argue it.
Having said that … he may well get a jury in the USA if he ever gets there (which he should not — he’s suffered too much already).
The delay to Assange’s justice is also clearly against the Magna Carta, which is the legal bedrock of much of the world’s population.
That document (see below) effectively gives the High Court the authority to broadcast. This argument only occured to me today, regrettably, after I saw the court’s argumentation.
