The legal system operates on the assumption that it is open to the public. Thinkers, judges and lawyers have argued this principle for hundreds of years. It means that members of the public have the right to see how justice is administered in their name. The US Supreme Court, in a decision on public trial rights, recognised that its open trial system, like ours, came from English common law. The court noted that public trials were said to have been firmly established by the 17th century, and suggested that public trials were part of the system long before rights we would consider rudimentary today, such as calling witnesses, having legal counsel, the ability to prepare a defence, and having prior notice of charges or prosecution evidence.

Commentators use pragmatic and theoretical justifications for public hearings: perjury might be deterred because others (presumably including those with knowledge of the issue before court) could hear the evidence; judges would be dissuaded from abuse of their positions; and the community could be confident in the integrity and impartiality of courts because their practices were open to scrutiny. As one judge has suggested, the fact that courts were held openly rather than secretly was an essential part of their character and distinguished them from the work of administrative officials. Jurors hear similar statements when they are discharged after finishing their work – community members decide on trials in open court, as opposed to anonymous officials in other systems.