Judiciary needs rational voice of the people

The Supreme People's Court has issued a regulation on the media supervision of courts. The new regulation has many good points, but what has taken people by surprise is that journalists could face criminal charges if they intentionally file biased reports that compromise judicial independence and impartiality.

We live in the age of information (technology), in which media supervision and public opinion play indispensable roles. We live in an age of justice, too, in which judicature manifests its authority.

As contacts between judicial organizations and the media become more frequent, it is inevitable that judicial organizations will confront the media and the latter will try to supervise the former.

The relationship between the judiciary and the media is mainly reflected in judicial independence and public supervision. In fact, judicial independence and free expression are two principles that are stated clearly in the Constitution. Thus they are coexistent and one cannot be neglected for the other.

So judicial organizations should not only accept media supervision and conduct open trials to avoid undue restrictions, but also prevent the negative impact of judicial independence and impartiality caused by the media's improper interference.

Media supervision should help people to exercise their right to information and freedom of expression, and play an active part in monitoring, supervising and ensuring judicial impartiality to prevent the devastating effects of malicious speculation and "trial by media".

Basically, a court trial involves a judge (or judges) and a reasoning process with a high degree of rationality and professionalism. This requires judges to maintain a neutral stance, and the exclusion of emotional and external nonlegal factors from trials.

But if the media hold a "trial" in a case they are likely to influence public opinion and put undue pressure on the judges. Public opinion should not force the holding of an "emotional trial", because that could lead to dangerous consequences.

There, however, have been some cases in which courts were pressured to pass judgments according to public opinion. Such judgments may be welcomed by the public but could put a big question mark on impartiality.

Today, we are surrounded not only by a web of laws, but also a web of public opinions and hence, involuntarily believe in the words and images flashed by the media. Media supervision may be right, but some organizations and individuals could use it improperly or abuse it (even if unwittingly).

Therefore, the media should exercise their right to speak, but only within legal limits, and respect the independence and impartiality of trials.

They should express public opinion in a timely, comprehensive and accurate way and help the judiciary to move toward impartiality and fairness.

The courts, on their part, should carefully scrutinize and identify media organizations for their malicious or intentionally biased reporting rather than opposing all kinds of reporting by the media. They should not try to haul up journalists to get even with the media for reporting something uncomfortable.

Judicial impartiality needs public support, a well-meaning and impartial environment, and constructive supervision by public opinion.

The author is a research fellow with the Judicial Research Institute of the Ministry of Justice.

(China Daily 01/11/2010 page9)