National Assembly delegates propose to be more open with the press in recording audio and video at court sessions

On the morning of May 28, the National Assembly discussed the draft Law on the Organization of People's Courts, which was amended. Notably, the content related to audio and video recording in court sessions received many opinions from delegates.

The press must be responsible for its recordings.

Delegate Nguyen Thi Viet Nga (Hai Duong) said that in reality, many incidents and cases were reported widely in newspapers, social networks, and the Internet in an unofficial manner, along with conflicting opinions from many social network users.

This has created significant impacts and pressure on the litigants participating in the case, negatively affecting the trial and legal propaganda work, and directly affecting individual rights and human rights as stipulated in the Constitution.

Therefore, the Russian delegate believes that stricter regulations on recording and filming in court are extremely necessary.

However, according to the Russian delegate, it is necessary to consider not only limiting the recording of images at court sessions and meetings during the opening of the court session, meeting, sentencing or announcement of decisions, but also limiting audio recording.

According to the Russian delegate, although the principle of publicity is to publicize the entire trial, not just the opening, sentencing, or announcement of the decision, if people are allowed to freely record audio and video during the trial, it will affect the trial process because it will more or less create chaos.

In divorce trials and business cases involving many private, corporate, and business secrets, if recording and filming are widespread and then posting edited information on social networks, it will affect the organizations and individuals involved.

Especially now, the punishment of violations in cyberspace environment is facing many difficulties and problems.

The Russian delegate noted that there should be a distinction between the subjects who are allowed to record audio and video in court. Specifically, the delegate proposed that there should be more open regulations on recording audio and video in court with groups of reporters, newspapers, and television.

Because they are well-trained, professional, and bound by work, the information will certainly be more professional and objective. This is also the opinion and recommendation of many voters who are reporters, television technicians, and journalists.

Delegate Pham Van Hoa (Dong Thap) expressed his agreement with the provisions on audio and video recording as in the draft, but suggested adjusting it in the direction of allowing press reporters to audio and video record suspects and defendants if they have the consent of the suspects and defendants.

"However, the press must record audio and video correctly, clearly, and specifically, and be responsible for their recordings. The editor-in-chief is responsible for the use of audio and video recordings. That way, no one would dare to spread false information online," said delegate Hoa.

Delegate Nguyen Thanh Nam (Phu Tho) proposed to adjust in the direction that recording images at court sessions and meetings can only be done during the opening of the court session, meeting, and the announcement of the verdict and decision when permitted by the presiding judge.

"In case of recording audio or images of other litigants or participants in court or meetings, their consent and the consent of the presiding judge of the court or meeting must be obtained," the delegate proposed.