Enlarge image
Camera in the courtroom: So far, only the media have been allowed to do this before the start of the trial – now Justice Minister Buschmann wants it to become standard in criminal trials
Photo: Marijan Murat / picture alliance / dpa
The justice ministries of the federal states are opposed to a draft law according to which main hearings in criminal proceedings are to be recorded by video in the future.
Federal Minister of Justice Marco Buschmann (FDP) presented a corresponding proposal last November.
The Thuringian Ministry of Justice now writes in a statement that it is "urgently necessary to refrain from the project".
Buschmann's draft "for a law for the digital documentation of the main criminal hearing" provides for the main hearing in criminal proceedings to be recorded in image and sound in the future.
The recordings are also to be converted into a text document using transcription software.
When the draft was published, Buschmann stated that digital documentation of the main hearing was overdue.
He promises that the new regulation will "further improve the high quality of criminal proceedings."
In Germany, those involved in proceedings such as judges have so far had to take notes when witnesses or experts testify.
In the future, according to the draft law, the transcript and recording will be made available to them “immediately” after the hearing.
But first 600 courtrooms would have to be equipped with the appropriate technology.
The Federal Ministry of Justice expects costs of 25,850 to 31,500 euros per courtroom.
Trade associations have heavily criticized the draft.
Prosecutors and judges fear that the recordings will make it more difficult to persuade people to testify in court.
There is also concern that recordings could be hacked and distributed on the Internet.
“The draft's lack of sensitivity to the personal rights of those involved in the proceedings is astounding.
Victims and witnesses are more likely to be intimidated and deterred,” says Sven Rebehn, Managing Director of the German Association of Judges.
"In addition, criminal proceedings, which are already taking longer than ever before, would be drawn out further by the excessive documentation plans."
Function of criminal proceedings impaired?
The justice ministries of the federal states apparently share these concerns.
Several opinions suggest this.
For example, the Lower Saxony SPD Minister of Justice, Kathrin Wahlmann, said that the project was "extremely critically viewed and unanimously rejected".
We agree with this assessment »unreservedly«.
The Hessian Ministry of Justice even writes that the comments they have received on the law are "extraordinary" in their scope and their rejection is clear.
The ministry quoted a court president as saying: "Rarely has a draft law met with such unanimous and vehement rejection from all the agencies involved." This negative assessment was also unreservedly shared in the ministry.
And there is also resistance to Buschmann's initiative from within his own party.
In a letter from the home of the Rhineland-Palatinate Minister of Justice Herbert Mertin (FDP), it says: Basically, one welcomes the goal of better documenting the negotiations.
However, the envisaged regulations go far beyond what is necessary and are more likely to "significantly impair the functionality of criminal proceedings and the goal of establishing the truth".
Defense lawyers see Buschmann's proposal positively
Buschmann's proposal has been well received by criminal defense lawyers.
Unlike the judiciary, they see progress in the video documentation.
"The objections are bogus arguments," says Ali B. Norouzi, deputy chairman of the Criminal Law Committee of the German Lawyers' Association.
»There is no empirical evidence that witnesses and other testimonies perceive the audiovisual documentation as an additional burden.«
In addition, the documentation can clarify misunderstandings about the content of witness statements and relieve those involved in the proceedings because they are not distracted by their own notes.
"Anyone who perceives increased transparency in court as a 'dubious benefit' makes it clear what it is really about: defending uncontrolled judicial decision-making power," says Norouzi.