OAKS, Justice.
This case concerns the circumstances under which a judge can exclude the public and the press from the preliminary hearing in a criminal case.
I. FACTS AND CHALLENGED ORDER
Three defendants were charged with aggravated kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, and aggravated exploitation of prostitution against two females, one age 17. The defense and the prosecution joined in a motion to close the preliminary hearing to the public. Respondent Lewis, a judge of the circuit court, held a hearing on that motion on November 23, 1983, the day scheduled for the preliminary hearing. Petitioner, the publisher of a daily newspaper, had been notified of the hearing and was represented there by counsel.
The proponents of closure relied on Utah Code of Criminal Procedure, Rule 7(d)(2), U.C.A., 1953, § 77-35-7(d)(2), which provides that on the request of either party at a preliminary examination “the magistrate may order all spectators to be excluded from the courtroom.” The prosecution and the defense urged closure to assure that defendants could have a fair trial before a jury whose impartiality had not been jeopardized by pretrial publicity in a “high profile” case. The prosecutor also referred in passing to an interest “in the privacy and the well being of the victims.” In opposing closure, petitioner relied on the press’s constitutional rights, as “the surrogate of the public,” to “be present and observe the workings of the judicial branch of the government.” While conceding that such hearings could be closed “as a last resort,” petitioner maintained that this could only be done where the circumstances met a three-pronged test, mentioned below (Part IVA). No evidence was proffered or received at the hearing. There were no representations that any evidence to be presented at the preliminary hearing would be subject to a motion to suppress or would otherwise be inadmissible at trial.
At the conclusion of arguments on the motion, the court stated that she would not close the courtroom if this were a trial, but this was only a preliminary hearing. The court then concluded: “The nature of the offense, as well as balancing the interest of the victims and the defendants, who are merely charged at this juncture, persuades this Court that this courtroom should be closed, and that will be the order of the Court.” No other findings or conclusions were indicated at this time. The court then denied petitioner’s motion to stay the preliminary hearing while it appealed the order of closure. The judge cleared the courtroom and went forward with the preliminary hearing. The 17-year-old victim testified. At the conclusion of the hearing, the defendants were bound over to the district court.
Petitioner immediately came to this Court with a complaint and petition for an extraordinary writ, seeking to vacate the order of closure and to stay the preliminary hearing pending decision. We denied the stay on November 23, but called for briefs on the merits, together with the record (including the findings of the court). The circuit court signed formal findings of fact on December 5, but through “clerical oversight” they were not filed of record until January 20, 1984, two weeks after petitioner’s brief was filed.
[518]*518II. MOOTNESS AND STANDING
Even though the preliminary hearing has been concluded, this appeal is not moot for the reasons stated in KUTV, Inc. v. Conder, Utah, 668 P.2d 513, 516-17 (1983). This case involves a question of considerable public interest that will recur and yet will evade review unless we apply an exception to the mootness doctrine. In addition, petitioner clearly has standing to contest the closure. Id. at 517.
III. THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF ACCESS
While it is settled that the public has a right of access to criminal trials, id. at 517; KUTV, Inc. v. Conder, Utah, 635 P.2d 412 (1981), we have not clarified whether a •preliminary hearing can be closed, and if so, what rules and procedures govern the closure.
The threshold question is whether either the federal or the state constitution gives the public (including the media) any constitutional right to attend a preliminary hearing, subject of course to appropriate exceptions. Petitioner asserts such a constitutional right. Respondent denies it, contending that the right to attend a preliminary hearing is subject to limitation by the Legislature without constitutional restraint. In this instance, the Legislature, acting through Rule 7(d)(2), has committed that decision to the discretion of the magistrate.
A. United States Constitution
The United States Supreme Court has now recognized that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution gives the public, including the media, a right of access to a criminal trial, subject only to narrowly tailored exceptions tied to a compelling state interest. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982); Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980). The principal reason for finding this right in the First Amendment is to promote an informed discussion of government affairs, including those conducted in the courts.
Underlying the First Amendment right of access to criminal trials is the common understanding that “a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs,” Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218, 86 S.Ct. 1434, 1436, 16 L.Ed.2d 484 (1966). By offering such protection, the First Amendment serves to ensure that the individual citizen can effectively participate in and contribute to our republican system of self-government.... Thus to the extent that the First Amendment embraces a right of access to criminal trials, it is to ensure that this constitutionally protected “discussion of governmental affairs” is an informed one.
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. at 604-05, 102 S.Ct. at 2619. Another reason cited for the First Amendment right of access is to ensure the fairness of the criminal trial.
The value of openness lies in the fact that people not actually attending trials can have confidence that standards of fairness are being observed; the sure knowledge that anyone is free to attend gives assurance that established procedures are being followed and that deviations will become known. Openness thus enhances both the basic fairness of the criminal trial and the appearance of fairness so essential to public confidence in the system.
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, — U.S. at-, 104 S.Ct. at 823.
The consequence of recognizing the First Amendment right of access to criminal trials is explained in the Supreme Court’s most recent decision:
Closed proceedings, although not absolutely precluded, must be rare and only for cause shown that outweighs the value of openness.... The presumption of openness may be overcome only by an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve [519]*519higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The interest is to be articulated along with findings specific enough that a reviewing court can determine whether the closure order was properly entered.
Id., — U.S. at-, 104 S.Ct. at 824 (emphasis added).
The question before us in this case is whether the rationale the Supreme Court gave in finding a First Amendment right of access to criminal trials applies to preliminary hearings. The Supreme Court has never resolved that question. The closest decision on its facts is Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979), which held, by a 5-4 majority, that on the facts of that case there was no constitutional violation in excluding the public and the press from a pretrial motion to suppress. The Court held, first, that the Sixth Amendment gave no constitutional right of access to the public. Second, even if the First Amendment gave a right of access it was “outweighed” by the defendant’s right to a fair trial in that case, since there was a “reasonable probability of prejudice” if the transcript of a hearing whose purpose was to screen out unreliable or illegally obtained evidence was made public in advance of the trial. Id. at 392-93, 99 S.Ct. at 2911-12.
There are a host of appellate court decisions applying the principles of the foregoing cases to a variety of different pretrial hearings, including those involving suppression or admissibility of evidence, voir dire of potential jurors, fixing of bail, and determinations of probable cause (preliminary hearings).1 Because we believe the issue should turn on the precise nature of the proceeding in question, we limit our review to cases involving preliminary hearings.
In the period since Richmond Newspapers and Globe Newspaper, three state appellate courts have decided that the new First Amendment right of public access applies to preliminary hearings. All held that the public and the media cannot be excluded from a preliminary hearing without findings of fact on the circumstances that outweigh the constitutional right. State v. Williams, 93 N.J. 39, 459 A.2d 641 (1983); Petition of Daily Item, 310 Pa.Super.Ct. 222, 456 A.2d 580 (1983). A similar decision, which covers but is not limited to preliminary hearings, is Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co. v. Kammeyer, Minn., 341 N.W.2d 550 (1983). An earlier decision to the same effect is Star Journal Publishing Corp. v. County Court, 197 Colo. 234, 591 P.2d 1028 (1979).
The most complete discussion is by the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Williams, supra, which concluded that “the ‘institutional value’ of open criminal trials applies with equal force to criminal pretrial proceedings,” including the preliminary hearing involved in that case. 459 A.2d at 648. While the preliminary hearing could be closed for cause (an exception discussed hereafter), this could only be done where the court disclosed on the record its findings of fact as to the basis for closure. Id. at 659. The other cited cases are to the same effect.
A decision to the contrary is San Jose-Mercury News v. Municipal Court, 30 Cal.3d 498, 638 P.2d 655, 179 Cal.Rptr. 772 (1982). This case sustained the constitutionality of a statute that requires the magistrate to close the preliminary hearing upon request of the defendant without any weighing of the public’s countervailing right to access. See also Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 150 Cal.App.3d 888, 198 Cal.Rptr. 241 (1984) (applies San Jose-[520]*520Mercury News precedent in holding no constitutional right of public access).2
In Redding v. Jacobsen, Utah, 638 P.2d 503 (1981), we reviewed the Richmond Newspapers decision and referred to “the new First Amendment right of access that seems to be emerging....” Id. at 509. In Globe Newspaper and Press-Enterprise, decided thereafter, the United States Supreme court confirmed the existence of a First Amendment right of access to criminal trials. Like the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Williams, supra, we believe that the reasons supporting the right of access to criminal trials apply equally to preliminary hearings (although the exceptions that justify closure may occur more frequently with preliminary hearings than with trials). We therefore hold that the public’s (including the media’s) First Amendment right of access applies to preliminary hearings in criminal cases.
While our decision on the First Amendment is sufficient to dispose of this case, it is also appropriate for us to resolve the issue under the Utah Constitution as an independent and alternative ground. On that ground, our decision is final and unre-viewable. Michigan v. Long, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 3476, 77 L.Ed. 1201 (1983).
B. Utah Constitution
1. The Preliminary Hearing
We preface our discussion of whether the closure of preliminary hearings violates our state constitution with a review of the purpose of preliminary hearings under our Utah procedure.
A person arrested for a felony is brought before a magistrate, who informs him of the charge, informs him of his right to. a preliminary examination, and fixes bail. § 77-35-7(a) and (c). Within a specified time thereafter, the arrested person has a right to a preliminary examination (unless he has been indicted). § 77-35-7(c). At that hearing, the prosecution has the burden of introducing sufficient evidence to persuade the magistrate that there is “probable cause to believe that the crime charged has been committed and that the defendant has committed it....” § 77-35-7(d)(l). In State v. Anderson, Utah, 612 P.2d 778, 783-84 (1980), we said:
The fundamental purpose served by the preliminary examination is the ferreting out of groundless and improvident prosecutions. The effectuation of this primary purpose relieves the accused from the substantial degradation and expense incident to a modern criminal trial when the charges against him are unwarranted or the evidence insufficient.
We also noted the ancillary purposes of providing the defendant particulars on the nature of the State’s case and a means to discover and preserve evidence favorable to his defense. Id. Cf. State v. Easthope, Utah, 668 P.2d 528 (1983) (power to compel discovery of evidence for use at preliminary hearing). In cases where a defendant ultimately pleads guilty to the charged offense or a lesser one, as reportedly occurred here, the preliminary hearing may provide the only occasion for a public hearing of the prosecution’s evidence.
If the magistrate finds probable cause, the defendant is bound over to answer in the district court. If not, the information is dismissed, and the defendant is discharged without prejudice to the State’s later instituting a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. § 77-35-7(d)(1).
In consideration of its vital functions, we have declared that “the preliminary hearing represents a critical stage in the criminal process [in Utah] and a part of the criminal prosecution.” State v. Anderson, 612 P.2d at 782 n. 9. In addition, in the case just cited we held that the preliminary [521]*521hearing is such an important part of the criminal prosecution that the right of confrontation guaranteed by Art. I, § 12 of the Utah Constitution imposes limits on the kinds of evidence the prosecution can use in that hearing. Id. at 782-83. In terms of State v. Anderson’s holding on the right of confrontation, the preliminary hearing is more like the trial, where there is such a right, than the grand jury proceeding, where the accused has no right of confrontation and cannot even be present in person or by counsel. Thus, the fact that the grand jury proceeding is traditionally closed provides no support for the argument that a preliminary hearing should also be closed. An accused who has the procedural safeguards afforded in the preliminary hearing has less need of closure to safeguard his rights.
Utah’s preliminary hearing is different from the preliminary hearings in some other jurisdictions in that it does not include hearings on motions to suppress evidence.3 Rule 7(d)(1) provides: “Objections to evidence on the ground that it was acquired by unlawful means are not properly raised at the preliminary examination.” § 77-35-7(d)(1). As a result, the added risks of prejudice through pretrial disclosure of evidence targeted in a motion to suppress are not present in Utah’s preliminary hearing. If the prosecution elected to try to use such evidence in the preliminary hearing (in advance of a ruling on whether it should be suppressed), the defendant could seek special measures to avoid its public disclosure, a matter not before us in this case. But the disclosures incident to resolution of a motion to suppress — often cited in arguments and rulings in favor of closing those hearings, e.g., Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. at 378-79, 99 S.Ct. at 2904-05— are not inevitably involved in the preliminary hearing in Utah.
2. Utah Constitutional Right of Public Access to Criminal Trials and Proceedings
“The cornerstone of democratic government is the conviction that governments exist at the sufferance of the people .... ” In re J.P., Utah, 648 P.2d 1364, 1372 (1982). “All political power is inherent in the people; and all free governments are founded on their authority for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require.” Utah Const, art. I, § 2. That foundation principle of our state constitutional law is implemented in part by Article I, § 15: “No law shall be passed to abridge or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press.” See KUTV, Inc. v. Conder, 668 P.2d at 518-21 (discusses history of provision). The freedoms of speech and press are fundamental to the effective exercise of the ultimate political power of the people.
If they are to exercise their sovereign power in an intelligent and responsible manner, the people must have free speech and a free press and access to operations of government. “Democracy blooms where the public is informed and stagnates where secrecy prevails.” Phoenix Newspapers Inc. v. Jennings, 107 Ariz. 557, 561, 490 P.2d 563, 567 (1971). As the New Jersey Supreme Court observed in State v. Williams, supra: “In addition to kindling public misperception and eroding public confidence, closure of significant pretrial proceedings perpetúates general ignorance and cuts off public knowledge necessary to a full understanding of the criminal justice system.” 93 N.J. at 54, 459 A.2d at 649.
The people are and should be deeply interested and involved in the administration of justice. Their interest and involvement in the operations of the judicial branch should be informed. We therefore hold that the people have a constitutional right of public access to criminal trials and preliminary hearings, subject to the exceptions outlined hereafter. While this holding recognizes no greater rights of access in the news media than in the public at large, we recognize the reality of petitioner’s contention that the media often act as [522]*522surrogates in asserting the public’s constitutional right of access, as petitioner does in this case. We also recognize and honor the fact that the exercise of access by the news media, coupled with a responsible exercise of its high public trust, will result in far more general dissemination of information about judicial proceedings than the attendance of any other members of the public.
Our decision is supported by what we consider to be the better-reasoned state supreme court decisions on public access to preliminary hearings as a matter of right under state constitutions. In State v. Williams, supra, the New Jersey Supreme Court found that its constitutional provision on free press, which is phrased in substantially the same terms as Art. I, § 15 of the Utah Constitution, created a public right of access to a preliminary hearing, subject to exceptions where the court finds that pretrial publicity poses a “realistic likelihood of prejudice to a fair trial ....” 93 N.J. at 63, 459 A.2d at 654. In Keene Publishing Corp. v. Keene District Court, 117 N.H. 959, 380 A.2d 261 (1977), the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that its free press provision guaranteed that the press could not be excluded from a probable cause hearing without finding that a failure to close the hearing would pose a clear and present danger to a fair trial. And in Phoenix Newspapers Inc. v. Jennings, supra, the Arizona Supreme Court relied on its free press provision and a provision for justice to be administered openly in holding that a preliminary hearing must be open unless “circumstances exist which establish a clear and present danger that the judicial process will be subverted by an open hearing .... ” 490 P.2d at 566.4
Two states have held that their state constitutions pose no obstacle to statutes or rules directing or permitting the closure of preliminary hearings.5 We find the reasoning of these opinions unpersuasive.
IV. EXCEPTIONS TO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF ACCESS
As noted in the preceding discussion, all of the courts that have recognized a constitutional right of access to criminal proceedings have also held that the right is subject to exceptions. For example, the court can restrict or deny access altogether where necessary to assure that the defendant receives a fair trial before an impartial jury. This section will discuss the criteria and procedures to be followed in making that determination.
A. Criteria
This case concerns the legality of closing a criminal proceeding to the public, not the legality of a prior restraint on publication. Consequently, the stringent three-pronged test applied by the Supreme Court on the legality of a prior restraint, Nebraska Press Association v Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976), and the four-pronged test applied by this Court on prior restraints limited to the duration of trial, KUTV, Inc. v. Wilkinson, 686 P.2d 456, (Utah, 1984), are inapplicable here.
[523]*523The burden that must be sustained to obtain closure of criminal proceedings should be less stringent than the burden required to impose a prior restraint. Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. at 393 n. 25, 99 S.Ct. at 2912 n. 25 (opinion of Court) and 398-401, 99 S.Ct. at 2914-2916 (Powell, J., concurring). Thus, the United States Supreme Court has phrased the criteria for closure (notwithstanding the First Amendment right of access) in terms that are comparatively easy to satisfy: “The presumption of openness may be overcome only by an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values [elsewhere identified as “the right of the accused to a fair trial,” 104 S.Ct. at 823] and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. at 824.
Interpreting the First Amendment and the comparable state constitutional guarantees, state courts have employed a variety of standards. Some courts have followed the A.B.A. standard, holding that in order to obtain closure in the face of the public right of access a defendant must show (1) that the public hearing presents a “clear and present danger” to his rights to a fair trial because there is a “substantial likelihood” that it would permit prejudicial information to reach potential jurors, and (2) that the prejudicial effect of such information on potential jurors cannot be avoided by any reasonable alternative means. Star Journal Publishing Corp. v. County Court, 197 Colo. 234, 591 P.2d 1028, 1030 (1979); Keene Publishing Corp. v. Keene District Court, 117 N.H. 959, 380 A.2d 261, 263 (1977); American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice Relating to Fair Trial and Free Press § 8-3.2 (2d ed. 1978).
On this element, we prefer the criteria phrased by the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Williams, supra, which does not adopt the “clear and present danger” test and simply makes reference to a “realistic likelihood of prejudice” as a result of adverse publicity traceable to the open hearing. 93 N.J. at 69, 459 A.2d at 656. Using its “special judicial expertise and experience,” 93 N.J. at 67, 459 A.2d at 655, the court will decide upon the need for closure based upon the following showings:
(1) the evidence relevant to the nature and extent of the adverse publicity [that may be] generated by the open pretrial proceeding, including any inferences as to its potential for prejudice against a fair trial by an impartial jury, and
(2) the evidence relating to the [availability, feasibility, and efficacy of alternative] means of selecting jurors and conducting the trial to assure the integrity and impartiality of the jury.
93 N.J. at 69, 459 A.2d at 656-57. (The words in brackets are from alternative formulations of the rule, 93 N.J. at 63-67, 459 A.2d at 653-55.) While easier to satisfy than the stringent multipart test pertaining to prior restraints, these criteria still impose a significant burden on a party who seeks to obtain an exception to the people’s right of access to the preliminary hearing in a criminal case.
B. Burden of Proof
The burden of proof and persuasion on the closure of a preliminary hearing is on the proponent of closure (defendant or prosecution). State v. Williams, 93 N.J. at 64, 459 A.2d at 654. This rule follows from the public’s constitutional right of access to the preliminary hearing. It imposes the burden on the party or parties with best access to evidence or information that can be used to sustain the burden. Contrary to the position advocated in the concurring opinion, it would be unfair and unworkable to impose the burden on the members of the public, such as the media, who rely on the constitutional right of access to the preliminary hearing. If the media had the burden of proving that an open hearing would not deny the defendant a fair trial, this would either doom their efforts to automatic failure (by requiring proof without access to evidence) or necessitate cumbersome and controversial prehearing discovery of evidence to the media, which could well render the issue of closure moot before it is heard.
[524]*524C. Procedure and Findings
For the same reasons' articulated in KUTV, Inc. v. Conder, 668 P.2d at 524-25, a closure order must be preceded by notice and hearing. Representative members of the media must receive notice of the motion for closure and, along with other interested parties who seek to participate, must be afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings upon the motion to the maximum extent possible. In order to prevent disclosure of the allegedly prejudicial material before the issue of closure can be resolved, the court should follow the procedure outlined below.
First, the hearing on the motion for closure should be open to the greatest extent possible. Westchester Rockland Newspapers, Inc. v. Legget, 48 N.Y.2d 430, 399 N.E.2d 518, 524-25, 434 N.Y.S.2d 630, 637-38 (1979). If an open hearing can be conducted without disclosing the content of the allegedly prejudicial material, this should be done. State v. Burak, 37 Conn. Sup. 627, 431 A.2d 1246 (1981).
Second, if disclosure of the allegedly prejudicial material is essential to the conduct of the hearing on the motion for closure, the court should first seek a voluntary agreement from the parties who wish to be present that they will not disclose the allegedly prejudicial information until it is disclosed at the trial or the trial has concluded. See, e.g., State ex rel. Smith v. District Court, Mont., 654 P.2d 982, 987-88 (1982); Keene Publishing Corp. v. Keene District Court, supra. Absent such an agreement, the court may close the courtroom in order to conduct in camera whatever proceedings cannot be conducted without disclosure of the allegedly prejudicial information. State v. Williams, 93 N.J. at 73, 459 A.2d at 658-59; Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Va., 281 S.E.2d 915, 924 (1981).
Third, we stress that under either alternative the public can only be excluded from that portion of the closure hearing that the court finds to be necessary to protect the countervailing interests, such as the defendant’s right to a fair trial. United States v. Cianfrani, 573 F.2d 835, 854 (3d Cir.1978).
Fourth, in the event that any portion of the proceeding is closed, the transcript of the proceeding should be made available to the public at the earliest time consistent with the preservation of the interests that required the hearing to be closed. State v. Burak, supra, 431 A.2d at 1248.
Fifth, an order of closure must be accompanied by suitable written findings. This requirement, which is imposed by virtually all of the authorities cited in this opinion, allows an affected party to subject the order to immediate review and gives the reviewing court an authentic statement of the facts and legal principles upon which the closure was based.
Under the foregoing procedure, the trial court will make an informed and fully explained decision on the necessity of closure, while considering and protecting the public's right of access to the fullest extent possible.
The closure order petitioner challenged in this case was not accompanied by written findings. Indeed, no evidence was submitted in the hearing on the defendants’ motion for closure. Without written findings, adequately supported by evidence, a closure order fails to qualify for the fair-trial exception and is invalid under the constitutional right of access defined in this opinion.
The extraordinary writ sought by petitioner is granted, and respondent’s November 23 order closing the preliminary hearing is set aside. No costs awarded.
HALL, C.J., and DURHAM, J., concur.
HOWE, J., concurs in the concurring and dissenting opinion of DANIELS, J.
STEWART, J., does not participate herein; DANIELS, District Judge, sat.