{"id":47587,"date":"2018-08-26T20:38:27","date_gmt":"2018-08-26T20:38:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/?p=47587"},"modified":"2019-04-17T17:12:56","modified_gmt":"2019-04-17T17:12:56","slug":"put-cameras-in-british-courtrooms-and-make-justice-truly-transparent-geoffrey-robertson","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/put-cameras-in-british-courtrooms-and-make-justice-truly-transparent-geoffrey-robertson\/","title":{"rendered":"Put cameras in British courtrooms, and make justice truly transparent | Geoffrey Robertson"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cE<\/span><\/span>very court in the land is open to every subject of the King\u201d declared the Earl of Halsbury in the famous case that enshrined the open justice principle in British law. Another law lord endorsed Jeremy Bentham\u2019s conclusion that \u201cPublicity is the very soul of justice \u2013 it keeps the judge, while trying, under trial.\u201d That case was back in 1913, but its logic has never been applied to make public scrutiny of justice a reality, by permitting television coverage of trials<\/a>. Now that the government\u2019s victims\u2019 commissioner, Helen Newlove, has declared that televising courts could improve the system<\/a>, and ITV is about to show a documentary featuring footage of proceedings<\/a> in the court of appeal, it is time to reconsider the ban on filming trials.<\/p>\n

Court proceedings are sometimes highly significant public occasions, and understanding of them needs much more than a few breathless comments by a reporter pictured outside the court door, with frequently inaccurate \u201cillustrations\u201d \u2013 in reality, cartoons by \u201ccourtroom artists\u201d banned from sketching inside the courtroom. Press reports are always incomplete and fail to capture the drama, or the oral emphasis and body language that can be crucial in a criminal trial.<\/p>\n

Consequently, there is a vast public misunderstanding of the criminal process and lack of appreciation of the role of judges and lawyers \u2013 one reason why this government has got away with slashing legal aid<\/a> and the budget of the Department of Justice. There is a legitimate public interest in important trials \u2013 recognised often by tribunals, such as Grenfell<\/a>, which can permit their proceedings to be televised.<\/p>\n

Of course, the televising of trials would have stringent protocols: the faces of the jury should never be shown (the verdict would be a voiceover) and defendants would not be pictured from the dock unless they protested from it or went into the witness box to give evidence. Barristers and expert witnesses could not avoid scrutiny, but the judge would have wide discretion to bar coverage of vulnerable witnesses or those who had a reasonable objection, and the power to disallow filming (except of him or herself) if it could prejudice the defendant.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n\"OJ<\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture><\/div>\n


\n<\/svg><\/span> <\/a>

\n<\/svg><\/span> \u2018The Bar Council, some years ago, recommended the televising of trials, but impetus was lost after the distaste at watching the OJ Simpson proceedings, perceived here as a media circus.\u2019 Photograph: Sipa Press\/REX\/Shutterstock
\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

There would be obvious advantages in appealing wrongful convictions: appellate courts would not dodge the issue by deferring to the trial judge \u201cwho unlike us has seen the witnesses\u201d, when they could evaluate testimony themselves by hearing and seeing it played back. Barristers frequently wish they could include as a ground of appeal an objection to a trial judge\u2019s prejudicial tone of voice or body language \u2013 prejudice which is not apparent from reading a trial transcript.<\/p>\n

The Bar Council some years ago recommended the televising of trials, but impetus was lost after the distaste at watching the OJ Simpson proceedings<\/a>, perceived here as a media circus. But when the Wall Street Journal commissioned a follow-up study of the impact of the television coverage in the US, it found that it resulted in an amazing drop in the number of people seeking exemption from jury service: citizens wished, much more than before, to play their part. Moreover, it caused those who did serve on juries to pay less attention to lawyers and their arguments, and to concentrate on the evidence.<\/p>\n

There are other public benefits. Had the trial of Tommy Robinson<\/a> been seen on television, the conspiracy theory that he was punished for exercising a right to free speech could hardly have taken hold worldwide (and the procedural unfairness would have been more clearly and quickly appreciated). Historic cases, had they been videotaped, would genuinely fascinate: imagine if we could watch the real trial of Jeremy Thorpe<\/a>, or of Clive Ponting<\/a>, or the \u201cIraqgate\u201d case<\/a> in which the Thatcher government kept evidence of innocence from the trial of men accused of sending bomb-making equipment to Saddam Hussein (until trade minister Alan Clark admitted to lying \u2013 or at least being \u201ceconomical with the actualit\u00e9\u201d). It would be informative, too, as well as entertaining, to be able to watch a few George Carman<\/a> cross-examinations of gold-diggers seeking libel damages for reputations they did not deserve.<\/p>\n