‘On Trial’, Australia’s first documentary series revealing the workings of Australian courts and providing behind the scenes access to major criminal trials, aired on ABC tonight. Members of the court, particularly the defence barrister and the crown prosecutor are interviewed explaining their roles and breaking down legal jargon and the courts proceedings.
The accused stands charged with threatening to shoot the victim with a firearm but the accused claims he was in fact the victim of an armed robbery. If the accused is found guilty on 3 firearm counts, possessing, using to intimidate and firing an unlicensed firearm, he faces a 14 year sentence. The case itself is controversial with evidence constantly swaying from in favour of the defence to in favour of the prosecution. Evidently to keep viewers engaged, the trials documented would have to fit the criteria of being relatively emotional, debatable, novel or violent. Certain factors such as these, which relate to ‘newsworthiness’ (Jewkes, 2004) can evidently be applied to the attractiveness of the ABC ‘On Trial’ documentary series and thus determine its success amongst its viewers.
It will be interesting for the public to understand the actual proceedings of court cases and how long and boring they often actually are, depending on the cases they choose to show. The accused has already served 10months in goal on remand and reveals the impact it has had on his life including the loss of his job. For those who are not so familiar with the courts, I think it is important to understand the legal process and its implications such as how long many trials take to be heard and consequently the length of time people can be held in remand.
Tim Macintosh, Crown Prosecutor states, ‘There is a search going on for the truth at one level, but it’s only a search that can take place within the rules of the game.. it’s a play between proof and truth.’ His statement is supported throughout the episode with both sides scrounging for anything as which to dismiss the other sides arguments. It also becomes apparent how important the jury is and that how they are to interpret evidence is greatly considered by both sides. Furthermore there are matters which are addressed in the absence of the jury as it is important to ensure evidence is reliable and admissible before heard by the jury as to avoid prejudice. Viewers are thus able to see facts which the jury may never hear in which I think the documentary has addressed very effectively, enabling the viewers to be the investigators and determine an outcome.
Evidently the courts are given little attention in the media so it will be interesting to see how the documentary series rates and if more attention will be paid to the courts in future.
S. Lambert (2010) On Trial: Proof or Truth, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)
Y. Jewkes (2004) Media and Crime, Sage Publications, London, Chap. 2
Interesting show isn't it? I would have liked to see you elaborate a little on the links you made with the academic literature. Perhaps some of the discussion on the week about courts and the media, and the work of Stepniak about cameras in court, would also have added an interesting element of analysis.
ReplyDeleteAlyce