Open justice or court circus?

The topics ranged from contractual interpretation and human rights jurisprudence to, erm, sausages. But it was his speech to the Hong Kong Foreign Correspondents' Club that pricked the ears of legal commentators at home and abroad.

Speaking on the topic of judges, journalists and open justice, the president of the Supreme Court rightly declared that "open justice is an essential feature of the rule of law". He went on to say that even in their "most basic form", court hearings and court judgments must be accessible to the public.

Never has the court process been as publicly accessible as during the criminal trial of Oscar Pistorius. After almost six months and 42 days of trial, televised around the globe and given more column inches than any previous domestic hearing, the world waited for the verdict from Judge Thokozile Masipa.

As Masipa delivered her judgment, scores of international lawyers, legal commentators and casual onlookers took to social media to dissect each finding of fact and interpretation of the law, passing judgment of their own.

The Pistorius trial, much like that of OJ Simpson in 1995, brought the media circus to town. News agencies, websites and television cameras caught every minute of action, debated each furrowed brow and critiqued every tear. Fears that the learned Barry Roux and Gerrie Nel would play up to the cameras may have been well-founded, but it's fair to say that Masipa looked less than impressed on occasion.

The trial has been worldwide news, with all the elements of a classic story for our time: a handsome Olympic hero, a bright and charismatic victim and a variety of caricature lawyers, witnesses and media commentators. The response on social media has been unprecedented, with parody accounts and dramatic recreations fuelling interest in the saga.

How the story ends will probably not be known for weeks or possibly even years to come as, appeals may well be filed by both the athlete and the prosecution.

No matter what the sentence is, for fans of the "Blade Runner" it will be too much, and for others it will fall short of true justice. But having seen the blanket coverage, it seems all opinions can be valid so long as they are well-considered. This is a case where the judge's decision is unlikely to satisfy everyone.

Lord Neuberger called the filming of the Pistorius trial "impressive". The media's "inaccurate and unfair reporting of a judge's decision in order to make a good story" may, as he says, be an abuse of the freedom of expression enjoyed by the press, but whether TV trials do anything to correct that is yet to be seen.

Kevin Poulter, editor at large