It has long been on the cards, gained wide support and now it is expected to be included in the Queen’s May speech. Repealing or modifying s 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and s 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 would make the court more accessible to the media. Despite open support from Jonathan Caplan QC in 1989 and later the Lord Chancellor, Derry Irvine, the transition has yet to be implemented. A few Court of Appeal cases were filmed back in 2004 but none were aired. Then despite the Bar Council’s favourable reception to Charlie Faulkner’s consultation in 2005 momentum remained idle.
In September 2011 Ken Clarke, The Justice Secretary who doubles up as Lord Chancellor, indicated that the blanket ban of cameras in the court room would be lifted. He said, “I think cameras in court are worth a try, indeed I think they are a good ideas because you have to demystify the process and there’s no good reason for not allowing people to see the judge, hear the sentence, hear the sentence in the judge’s own words, with his explanation rather than perhaps the way it might be reported afterwards”. So now the media waits with bated breath for details contained in the forthcoming Queen’s speech.
Evaluating the merits of for and against arguments communicates the reasoning behind such slow development. Those in favour, advocate the importance of openness and public awareness of judicial decision making. Members of the public already have access to the gallery of the court, with the exception of some anonymity cases and so a camera would simply be an extension of this. The lobbying on this matter suggests that filming would be initially confined to the Court of Appeal and to the judges final summing up (the judgment) of cases. This would significantly improve clarity as journalists would not need to memorise many elementary details between court and broadcast.
The Supreme Court which began to hear proceedings in October 2009 was fitted with cameras and already allows live filming which can be viewed online. An archive of filmed judgments allows an individual that may have misgivings over an outcome an insight into the reasoning behind the decision. There are many themes, principles and tests that judges are confined to, which arise from legislation and previous cases (precedent) and these constraints do not always allow natural justice. This would be far better understood if the process could be widely viewed.
A major concern is the protection of anonymity and the vulnerable. This worry is unfounded. The media already creates enough of a storm with incorrect details and out of context snippets and quotes; availability of the full judgment would provide clarity. In addition it is high priority to those who propose change that anonymity cases have sufficient safeguards. Such cases already exhibit letters in the place of names and it is unlikely many of these cases will be deemed suitable for the camera.
The anonymity of jurors is also grounds for contention, however juries are not present in cases above The High Court and so this is an irrelevant argument at this point. Should the move remain restricted to Court of Appeal and The Supreme Court the judgments, the focus would be solely on erred points of law. With each level the trial element fades. Filming of defendants, victims or jurors would not need to be discussed unless cameras were allowed into the Crown Court for the length of the trial. It is a possibility further along the line however; Ken Clarke pledged to “proceed cautiously”.
Another worry is the slippery slope to a media circus and sensationalism by those present in the court. The OJ Simpson trial is a classic example of this. The American murder trial mutated into primetime television entertainment and this undermined justice. The private civil case afterwards had a very different outcome. I filming later progressed to include more than the judgment, there is a fear that judges, jurors, witnesses and defendants may be tempted to act up to the camera. Not only would justice be jeopardised but so too would the integrity of the justice system.
However a lot has been learned since the OJ Simpson trial and proceeding cautiously should allay future anxieties. Awareness of these issues is the first step to ensuring their prevention. Keir Starmer, Director of Public Prosecutions, is in favour of judgments, sentencing and the closing remarks of criminal cases being filmed, "OJ is always given as the example of sensationalism, but a lot of lessons have been learned since then".
In addition as any court reporter will tell you, the court room is often a dull space filled with boring periods with occasional peak of excitement. In order to make compelling viewing from the day to day grind, there would need to be a limited selection of cases which were edited at supersonic speed and monumental length. Public viewing always holds the potential for theatrics, but it can also ensure correct conduct.
Whatever happens a monumental change for the media in court proceedings is assured.
