We should allow cameras to cover court proceedings

Sky's John Ryley has announced that, after the forthcoming election, his organisation will be campaigning for television cameras to be allowed into our courts. 

Big Brother Watch is in total agreement with him. To make some obvious points (the first being an out-and-out cliché of course)

• Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done – faith in the legal system depends in part on seeing justice meted out fairly, particularly in this time of decline of faith in institutions

• As a reflection of the system of open justice we rightly allow members of the public to watch trials and court proceedings – cameras in the courts are just a reflection of that – there’s no possible logical justification for saying it’s fine for 20 people who can cram themselves into a gallery can watch, but the rest of us who can’t fit in can’t

• Existing provisions can be made for exclusion and/or anonymity where required

• People should be better informed of the workings of the justice system and there’s no better way to inform them about it than to show them.  The idea that our courts will be “dumbed down” by exposure to soundbite coverage needs to be weighed against the opportunity offered by TV cameras and coverage to actually show and explain the complexity of the system (and in any case, we get “soundbite” coverage already, only without the footage of the courtroom!).

• Cases will often be of public interest – why shouldn’t we be able to see what happens?  The burden should be on those wishing to keep these things secret, given that.

• The best evidence is preferred in court cases: it is perverse that the same doesn’t apply in allowing the reporting of what happens in courts – the best evidence of what happens is footage of actual events and arguments, not interpretation or glossing by others.

I say all that having practised for some time in criminal law, with some experience of the mechanics of reporting from court, filled public galleries, the resentment of families at being excluded by small seating areas, etcetera.  These things matter.  Sky's position is right and their campaign is right - we will do what we can to assist.

By Alex Deane

Comments

[NeverSurrender]

What if the defendant objected to being filmed and would not participate if they were? The cameras could be seen as a barrier to justice by some. They must not be compulsory.

[Ben]

I think this is crazy. Plus kinda ironic that you call for less camera's outside but want them in court rooms.

What if after a 3 month trial someone is found innocent, they have then had their reputation broadcast live on TV in connection to a case but are then found not-guilty - you think the public will easily forgive and forget them? What happened to Michael Jackson and OJ could then happen to everyone found innocent.

Justice can be seen through the punishments dished out not by actually putting camera's in a court room - that's too literal. Reforming punishments and compensation is a better way to improve public opinion. When a 'victim' of a ridiculous health and safety case gets more than an injured Iraqi soldier, that's what annoy's people about British justice, not that they can't see the machinations behind it.

The difference between actually turning up at court to watch a case and watching it on TV has nothing to do with the viewer but how that footage could be spread around. Currently you are not allowed camera's in court to record images of people...if this changed you'd get defendants, judges and witnesses all over Youtube et all with all kinds of unfounded remarks and comments.

With all this I assume you would still keep juries anonymous?

Reform punishment, rehabilitation, increase police on the streets and modernise all court houses but keep camera's out.