Should trials be public? – A discussion

Extraits

[...] There is in France no prosecution secrecy, only a professional secrecy. The consequence is dual. First, people who are not taking part to the investigation or prosecution are not bound to secrecy. That way, the accused, the plaintiff or any witness can inform the journalists, unlike prosecutors, police officers and judiciary police agents, experts and clerks who are bound to secrecy but do not always respect it. On the basis of this principle rule, particular texts more or less precisely allow secrecy infringements and therefore enable journalists to publish certain information. [...]

[...] A six-months prison sentence and a fine are made provision for. If the tort is committed through the press of by broadcasting, specific legal provisions governing these matters are applicable to define the persons who are responsible. However, prosecution on the basis of art. 434-16 is extremely rare on practical terms, since the implied willful misrepresentation coercing on purpose - is very difficult to prove. That being said, French law clearly distinguishes a preparatory phase and a deciding phase in judicial process more strongly than British law does. [...]

[...] Should trials be public? A discussion Regarding judicial process, every law-maker has to choose between two logics: a trial should either be secretly conducted in order to protect privacy, a fair investigation and especially the presumption of innocence, or the procedure should be made public to ensure public information, particularly the press'. The logic, which is obviously strongly defended by journalists, is nowadays accepted by most Constitutions. According to article 5-1 of the German Grundgesetz (fundamental law), freedom of press and the freedom of information are guaranteed”. [...]

[...] The journalists have to be very careful. For instance, if the facts imply a burglary, journalists should write about the arrest of instead of man's”. They should not either describe the physical aspect of the burglars or give the names of the accused or evoke their past. In case of harmful publicity, the decision can be overruled by a superior judge. In a famous case, three persons were accused of “conspiracy” against a minister's house. During hearing, they used their right to keep silent. [...]

[...] Lastly, the prosecutor can publish objective elements taken from the file in order to prevent the propagation of truncated information. But art al of the Criminal Procedure Code adds that these elements “shall not include any assessment on the validity of the charges”. This clause was adopted under influence of the ECHR, who had declared that the former contempt of Court did not conform to the art of the European Convention of Human Rights on freedom of press (Sunday Times v. [...]