|
|
PREPARING SOUTH AFRICA FOR THE WORLD |
It's been a torrid week for television channel ETV which aired an interview with two self-confessed criminals who threatened to rob visitors during the 2010 World Cup. The programme caused an outcry with the SA Police Services saying the report 'constitutes gratuitous sensationalism and creates an unnecessary climate of fear and hysteria'. Two journalists involved in the story have been served with subpoenas in terms of Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act and they are required to appear in court on January 25. Project 2010 spoke to Professor Dario Milo, a media law expert with Webber Wentzel attorneys and a visiting associate professor at Wits University, about the case...  What are the issues at stake? We've got the state's rights to pursue two men who have threatened to commit serious crimes and the station's right to protect its sources. The court will have to balance these competing interests. What makes this case so extraordinary? Well, for starters, it would set a precedent and test the limits of Section 205. Of course, Cases like this do not come along all that often. There was a Section 205 served on (former Cape Times photographer) Benny Gool some years ago, but the subpoena was ultimately withdrawn. So there was no defining ruling. Are we likely to get one now? It would be very interesting to see how the courts rule on an issue like this. But, if it does go ahead, there are likely to be appeals, so we could be a way off. How would a case like this play out overseas….in the US for example? In the US, this is dealt with on a state-by-state basis, so it's difficult to gauge how the authorities would react. Unusually for the US, there is certainly no protection under by the Supreme Court of the right to protect sources: it is left to the individual states to decide to do this. more interviews... |
