The ongoing trial of Bruce Lehrmann in the ACT Supreme court for the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins in the Federal Parliament perfectly illustrates the power and the potential damage of publicity.

The case is unusual in many ways and consequently newsworthy.  Unusually the complainant apparently went out of her way to seek out and then encourage media interest in the alleged offence committed against her.  The fact that the location of the offence was the Federal Parliament added enormously to the public interest.

Currently we are being treated to ongoing and piecemeal reporting and updates of the evidence being heard during the taking of that evidence.  We read such reports with interest of course and the events become a talking point amongst friends and at work.

But is such publicity in the interests of justice prior to a verdict being delivered by the jury? A jury who will hear all the evidence and alone amongst decision makers have the opportunity and the heavy responsibility of assessing the credibility of crucial witnesses such as the complainant and possibly in due course the Accused man.

Do jurors read the media reports of the case they are sitting on as the case progresses?  I am sure they do, how could they not do so?  Are they affected in any way by the views of others?  Quite possibly as they are only human.  Should they be affected by the views of others?  Absolutely not!

The horse has bolted on the question of publicity in trials.  It can be an effective tool in highlighting injustice and in bringing overlooked causes to trial as we saw in the recent case of Chris Dawson.  Equally, it may quite possibly skew and impact upon the opinion of decision makers who are required to be utterly impartial.

The requirement of public interest versus the right to a fair trial.  Let’s see how this plays out in the near future in the Bruce Lehrmann trial.