"The controlling effect of publicity, which is stimulating for the judge and secures the interests of the accused and the defence, is well known. Its greatest advantage is that it convinces the public that the administration of justice is concerned with the search for material truth and that the court is guided by the law alone; its greatest disadvantage is that, if the public is not sufficiently reassured, the public trial may become a school for professional criminals. There are divergent views on the degree of publicity acceptable at certain stages of a criminal trial, especially during the criminal investigation. This then led to differentiating between different degrees of publicity in most places and accepting them differently at different stages of the proceedings.” 3

On the threshold of the 21st century, the concept of the public has a complex, multi-layered meaning. On the one hand, it means that anyone can attend a court hearing in person and, with the exception of a few legal restrictions, demonstrate by their presence the “social control” of the functioning of the courts. “Addressing the issue of courtroom publicity is particularly important at a time when the proportion of news about court cases is increasing worldwide and some surveys estimate that this news accounts for up to 40 percent of all news […]; courtroom publicity is only a small part, an aspect of judicial publicity, yet it is an issue that needs to be addressed because in Hungary, in this area, there are serious problems with the way in which both judges and media representatives inform the public about judicial activity.”4 The most important level of public communication is through the written and electronic press, but there are often serious concerns about the objectivity and professionalism of these publicist articles, due to one-sided reporting and factual and legal inaccuracies.5 From this point of view, it would seem particularly important that prosecution spokespersons and defence lawyers6 provide the media with accurate and objective information, particularly on the state of evidence.

The principle of open trial means that members of civil society can ascertain the legality of the work of the courts not only on the basis of the statements of the persons involved in the case, but also on the basis of their own presence.7 “In a modern procedure, the broadest possible communication with those outside the proceedings, i.e. with the public at large or through the press, takes place at the trial.” 8

However, possible reasons for excluding or restricting the public have emerged over time, both internationally and domestically: