A practical guide to the judiciary’s media guidelines
Reporting on court proceedings is not merely a journalistic function; it is a responsibility that sits at the intersection of public interest, legal accuracy, and judicial integrity. In Brunei Darussalam, this responsibility is framed by the Judiciary’s Media Guidelines, a document that sets out clear expectations for how court matters are to be reported, accessed, and presented to the public.
At its core, the guidelines reaffirm the principle of open justice. Courts operate on the basis that proceedings should, as far as possible, be transparent and open to scrutiny. Media reporting plays a central role in giving effect to this principle by enabling public access to court outcomes and processes. However, openness does not equate to unrestricted reporting. The Judiciary makes it clear that transparency must be balanced with fairness, accuracy, and the protection of vulnerable parties.
One of the most explicit obligations placed on journalists and media organisations is accuracy. The onus lies entirely with the media to ensure that all reports are factually correct. This is particularly important given that judgments and sentences may be published in real time. Speed, while valuable in a digital news environment, does not diminish the duty to verify information, use precise legal language, and avoid speculation.
To maintain consistency and protect judicial independence, all media engagement with the courts is channelled through the Press and Media Committee. Designated representatives from the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts serve as the sole official points of contact. Journalists are expressly prohibited from approaching judges, judicial officers, or court staff directly. This safeguard ensures that reporting does not compromise ongoing proceedings or create perceptions of influence or impropriety.
In terms of access to court materials, the guidelines draw a clear distinction between routinely available information and restricted material. Sentencing outcomes, written judgments and hearing dates are generally accessible without the need for a formal application. Any request beyond this scope must be submitted by email to the Press and Media Committee. This structured process reinforces order while preserving reasonable media access.
Visual reporting is subject to strict controls. Photography, video, and audio recording of court proceedings inside courtrooms are prohibited without exception, and any unauthorised recordings will be deleted. The restrictions extend beyond the courtroom itself. Unauthorised filming or photography of judges or judicial officers, including while entering or leaving court premises, is not permitted. Even filming defendants entering or exiting courtrooms for broadcast purposes requires prior coordination with the Press and Media Committee. These rules reflect the judiciary’s emphasis on decorum, security, and the integrity of proceedings.
Where a case attracts significant public attention, the Judiciary may publish sentences or judgments on its official website to facilitate accurate reporting. However, journalists should not expect commentary from the bench. Judges and judicial officers do not, as a general rule, provide interviews or comments on cases they are presiding over. This long-established convention protects impartiality and avoids any risk of prejudicing proceedings or appeals.
The guidelines also set out firm restrictions on reporting content. While there is a presumption in favour of open courts, certain hearings may be closed to the public in the interests of justice, such as cases involving vulnerable witnesses. These hearings are clearly designated as being held “in camera”, and media attendance is not permitted.
Particular caution is required in cases involving sexual offences. The identification of victims, whether direct or indirect, is strictly prohibited. In some circumstances, this restriction extends to offenders where naming them would lead to the identification of the victim, including cases involving familial relationships. Journalists are expected to assess identification risks carefully, not merely rely on the absence of an explicit prohibition.
Reporting on children and young persons is subject to statutory restrictions under the Children and Young Persons Act. Journalists must not publish names, addresses, schools, or any details that could lead to the identification of minors involved in court proceedings, whether as accused persons or witnesses. Language is also regulated. The terms “conviction” and “sentence” are not to be used in juvenile cases. Instead, legally accurate alternatives such as “finding of guilt” or “order made” must be applied. These provisions are designed to protect young persons from long-term stigma and harm.
Professional court reporting also requires the correct use of judicial titles. Magistrates, senior magistrates, chief magistrates, judges, justices, and judicial commissioners must be referred to according to the level of court in which they sit. While this may appear technical, incorrect forms of address undermine credibility and signal a lack of legal literacy.
When reporting on criminal cases, the Judiciary outlines essential elements that should be included: the plea entered by the accused, the penalties associated with the charges, the sentence imposed where applicable, the reasons for sentence including aggravating and mitigating factors, and any relevant previous convictions. These components provide context and prevent oversimplified or misleading reporting.
Above all, journalists are reminded of a foundational legal principle: an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Alleged offences must never be reported as established fact prior to a finding of guilt. Failure to observe this principle risks unfairness, reputational harm, and potential legal consequences.
For legal reporters and newsrooms, the Media Guidelines are not merely administrative instructions. They are a professional framework that defines ethical court reporting in Brunei Darussalam. Compliance is not optional. It is integral to maintaining public confidence in both the media and the justice system it reports on.