In total, the court stream received 1,412,278 views, including approximately 390,000 on the first day of the September 30 hearing. This includes data from the court states.
The audience peaked at 58,484 at a directional hearing after the YouTube link was heavily shared on the Telegram channel, including supporters of Senator Malcolm Roberts.
The New South Wales Supreme Court has previously passed a selected number of public interest cases, including an admission ceremony and part of the trial of former Labor powerhouse Eddie Obeid.
“The court’s use of YouTube to respond to the increased public interest in these cases demonstrates the court’s open principle of justice,” a spokeswoman said.
YouTube analytics couldn’t reveal the country of origin of the viewer.
Federal courts also turned to the defamation battle of Christian Porter during the COVID-19 pandemic and the streaming of public interest cases, including the related Jo Dyer v Sue Chrysanthou case.
Each peaked with more than 2000 viewers, and about 900 people were involved in the hearing with Ben Roberts-Smith.
Professor Rick Saale said the broadcast court procedure dates back to the discovery of the crown for the death of Azaria Chamberlain in 1981.
However, concerns about the preservation of evidence, lawyers playing with cameras, and the establishment of courts for broadcasting are all retained except in a few cases.
An adjunct professor at the University of South Australia can’t see the jury trial streaming, but suggests that the judicial explanation of the decision shouldn’t be broadcast.
“I think it will happen a lot more, but the judge will pay more attention to what they follow,” he told AAP.
“If you put it in the hands of the judge, he or she will be in the best position to make a call.”
QC President Nora Gjakova Blush of the Australian Legal Council said public trust in the judicial administration demands that the judiciary not only be done, but that it appears to be done.
“The court’s willingness and adaptability to move online during COVID not only allowed Australians to continue to have access to the judiciary during this period, but also to allow more members of the community to have legal access to the legal system as needed. You can now monitor your operations, “Dr. Blush told AAP.
But she said the shift created potential challenges that people had to manage, such as keeping people from recording minutes.
This issue became apparent at the Vaccine Obligation Hearing, and the NSW Supreme Court removed the ability to monitor the hearing after the hearing.
Friday’s decision is short and the reasons will be announced in writing soon.
Plaintiffs (a group of 10 people, including teachers and nurses) claimed that public health orders requiring them to be vaccinated before going to work were invalid.
Their lawyer told Judge Robert Beach Jones that the order was an attempt to vaccinate clients and force them to discriminate against minority groups.
However, a barrister from Health Minister Brad Hazard said the rule was actually a temporary restriction on movement that could be avoided if plaintiffs decided to be vaccinated.
1 Million Views NSWCOVID-19 Vaccine Delegation Case
Source link 1 Million Views NSWCOVID-19 Vaccine Delegation Case