Keeping the public out of a Broadcast Commission hearing will make it more likely that the contesting parties will focus on the relevant issues in arguing their case the commission has ruled.

Such a move also addresses concerns that the hearing will be inaccurately reported by the media, the radio and television watchdog claimed yesterday.

The Commission had been asked by media organisations to open up to the public a hearing into whether the Premier's address to the country in February breached regulations.

Just three commissioners deliberated on the matter - three others declared a conflict of interest. And the Commission issued its ruling - with a dissenting opinion - to the broadcast companies and The Royal Gazette this week.

The ruling starts by saying that the law does not require the Commission to hold open hearings and specifically allows it to regulate its own procedure.

It argued that hearings have historically not been open.

"While the length of a particular practice may not be a persuasive argument for its continuance, the fact of the matter is that an in camera (closed) setting makes it more likely than not that the parties' submissions to the Commission will be directed to towards gaining public sympathy through the media. The Commissioners' past experience has been that an in camera setting encourages direct and to the point submissions and eliminates the fear (perceived or real) and possible prejudice that the words spoken or written by the parties may be misconstrued by the media."

The ruling continues: "The hearing into whether a broadcast has breached the Directions does not involve the public interest to such an extent that public access is a warranted or necessary protection.

"No liberty issues are at stake such as exist in the criminal courts. property rights are not at risk and the Commissioners' powers under the legislation are limited, unlike the powers of a court."

It adds that the parties to a hearing have a right to be treated fairly, adding: "The Commission has always given parties a full opportunity to be heard, have kept a record of the proceedings and have rendered written decisions which provide the parties with reasons and are generally available for scrutiny by the public."

It adds that the parties have always been free to publicly release the Commission's decisions and speeches on the floor of the House of Assembly and access to the Supreme Court and the media protect whatever public interest exist.

But the ruling also notes that the decision does not mean that future hearings will not be open to the public.

"The Commission accepts that an occasion may arise in the future where the public interest is so strong that the particular hearing in question may or ought to be open to the general public. The decision, therefore, reached in this particular case should not be viewed as closing the door to future applications by members of the public."

The lone dissenting view was that the public had a "compelling interest" in such hearings and that closed hearings should be the exception.

"Deciding whether a broadcast made by the Premier of Bermuda, a Member of Parliament or a political party member contravenes the Directions, presupposes that the Commissioners have the power, or at the very least the power to influence what a politician can or cannot say to the public via public broadcasting stations.

"In a democracy, the power to regulate what political information is or should be disseminated to the public and how long and when such broadcasts should take place, affects or potentially affects not only the parties to a complaint under the legislation, but all members of the community. The public therefore have a compelling interest in the subject matter and should have the opportunity, if not the right, to observe the hearing.

"In the absence of legislative direction, proceedings of a statutory tribunal should be conducted in public unless there be good reason to hold them in camera. No convincing reasons have been presented for curtailing who may attend the hearing."