The high profile case is the Claremont serial killings trial. Ferguson CJ's sentiment is an important one, but I think it's overstated. The presence of heightened public interest can and should change criminal justice processes in at least some respects. https://twitter.com/PiddingtonSoc/status/1198749062414995457

First, high public interest affects the lay participants in a trial - witnesses, jurors, family members. They will likely know a good deal more about the evidence than in low profile trials, and will likely be far more conscious of the public response to their conduct.

Second, high public interest causes burdens for all participants. Scrutiny can be difficult for professionals, especially when it is (or is considered) unfair'. Professionals and lay people can find the scrutiny - and the need to manage the media in various ways - stressful.

Third, high public interest creates different dangers of miscarriage of justice. More scrutiny can lead to more care (generally a good thing) but also to a reluctance to concede error or change course, including for police, prosecutors, judges, defence lawyers and witnesses.

Fourth, high public interest places enormous stress on the ordinary rules that apply to criminal trials - the rules of evidence and also rules that limit openness, such as suppression orders and jury confidentiality. The rules become stressful to apply and perhaps unworkable.

Fifth, high public interest OUGHT to be a factor that is relevant to some discretionary decision-making, notably suppression orders. High interest reduces those orders' efficacy and also ought to be a factor in favour of openness, because the costs of secrecy are higher.