Protection of Judicial Authority in Media
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
In relation to the criticism of judges it is important to ensure that the call to account does not overwhelm judicial independence. The process of accountability itself will be unworkable and therefore unacceptable. Whether criticism is purposive and how to assess criticism as purposive will depend on the facts and circumstances of each event.
The Strasbourg Court’s jurisprudence proves that although the judiciary enjoys a special protection, it does not function in a vacuum and questions about the administration of justice may be part of the public debate.
In the Sunday Times v. United Kingdom [6] the European Human Rights Court noted, that “there is general recognition of the fact that the courts cannot operate in a vacuum. Whilst they are the forum for the settlement of disputes, this does not means that there can be no prior discussion of disputes elsewhere, be it in specialised journals, in the general press or amongst the public at large. Furthermore, whilst the mass media must not overstep the bounds imposed in the interests of the proper administration of justice, it is incumbent on them to impart information and ideas concerning maters that come before the courts just as in other areas of public interest. Not only do the media have the task of imparting such information and ideas: the public also has a right to receive them“.
Reticence and avoidance of courts to explain adopted decisions and certain circumstances that influenced decisions that are not present in laconic court documents to the media and the public does not protect authority of courts too. The requirements to state absolutely all influential circumstances in the decision are often not fully realized and the motives that predetermined a certain decision remain unmentioned. Therefore the conciseness and laconicism in decisions and oftentimes dilettantism of the media create conditions for doubts and distrust in the work of a court to thrive. Courts should be interested in informing the society about adopted decisions, especially in resonant cases. This would lead to avoidance of false and misleading information spread by the media.
The Lithuanian law and practice on criticizing judges and the ways in which they may react to criticism differ considerably from those in the so–called common law countries. Judges do not enjoy any special protection of their private lives, criticism or defamation.
The analysis revealed, that judges can not be treated as public persons, therefore they are afforded maximum protection of their reputations and private lives.
The Strasbourg Court’s jurisprudence proves that although the judiciary enjoys a special protection, it does not function in a vacuum and questions about the administration of justice may be part of the public debate.
In the Sunday Times v. United Kingdom [6] the European Human Rights Court noted, that “there is general recognition of the fact that the courts cannot operate in a vacuum. Whilst they are the forum for the settlement of disputes, this does not means that there can be no prior discussion of disputes elsewhere, be it in specialised journals, in the general press or amongst the public at large. Furthermore, whilst the mass media must not overstep the bounds imposed in the interests of the proper administration of justice, it is incumbent on them to impart information and ideas concerning maters that come before the courts just as in other areas of public interest. Not only do the media have the task of imparting such information and ideas: the public also has a right to receive them“.
Reticence and avoidance of courts to explain adopted decisions and certain circumstances that influenced decisions that are not present in laconic court documents to the media and the public does not protect authority of courts too. The requirements to state absolutely all influential circumstances in the decision are often not fully realized and the motives that predetermined a certain decision remain unmentioned. Therefore the conciseness and laconicism in decisions and oftentimes dilettantism of the media create conditions for doubts and distrust in the work of a court to thrive. Courts should be interested in informing the society about adopted decisions, especially in resonant cases. This would lead to avoidance of false and misleading information spread by the media.
The Lithuanian law and practice on criticizing judges and the ways in which they may react to criticism differ considerably from those in the so–called common law countries. Judges do not enjoy any special protection of their private lives, criticism or defamation.
The analysis revealed, that judges can not be treated as public persons, therefore they are afforded maximum protection of their reputations and private lives.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Section
Articles
Authors contributing to Jurisprudence agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public (CC BY-NC-ND) License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this licence are made clear.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
