CAMERAS IN COURT: A LONG OVERDUE CHANGE OR A STEP TOO FAR?

22/10/2011

Watch the introductory film presented by Mark Austin, and watch the complete debate, chaired by Alastair Stewart on the ITN website.

The recent decision by the Ministry of Justice to let cameras into courtrooms to screen judgements has huge implications for both the media and the law. A large proportion of the British public relies on sketchy pastel drawings and court reports from specialised journalists who, despite their best efforts, can only tell so much of the story. Filming in courtrooms was banned 85 years ago and we're now living in an age of social media; the UK Supreme Court has even given the go-ahead for journalists to use Twitter during its hearings. Surely a ban originally introduced as a result of photographers' exploding flashguns is somewhat archaic in 2011?

Many people will not argue against access to justice, yet a large part of the population will never have set foot in a court, unless they've undertaken jury service, given evidence as a witness – or been tried for a crime. Without turning courtrooms into theatres, there could be plenty of opportunities for broadcasters to shine a light on the workings of justice. Such a move would however come with risks.

The Media Society joined forces with ITN on 19 October to develop both sides of the argument. ITN, alongside the BBC and Sky comprise the cross broadcaster working group on cameras in court, and are pretty much unanimous on the issue, bringing to the debate a unified voice. After all, there are clear public interest and commercial arguments in favour of such a move.

Would it be turgidly boring or sensational television? John Whittingdale was “surprised it had taken this long”, but as the chair of the high profile Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, the MP acknowledged that his own Commons hearings were something of a media spectacle. He could be justifiably proud – bar a certain foam pie incident – of his own committee’s record in demonstrating scrutiny of high profile figures. Yet “parliament is nothing to do with activity in a court” according to his former parliamentary colleague, Sir Ivan Lawrence QC. By arguing that it was acceptable for parliament, Sir Ivan argued, it was going far from the whole basis of justice on which people's lives are judged. Television would “taint, corrupt and pollute” he claimed. “You don't cross-examine Ministers...the problem with courts is that justice is a very delicate matter”. Half of defendants in criminal trials are acquitted after all, and the stigma that comes from television “is enormous... where's the justice in that?”.

Fran Unsworth led the campaign for the BBC, holding up a tiny camcorder-sized device which the Corporation proposes to use in courtrooms. For her, the words spoken in a court deserved to be heard first-hand. “Why is it not considered odd that a reporter reports a case second hand rather than first hand? We are extending the public gallery to a wider public”. But if all the BBC, and others, could do was film the comments of judges, Unsworth predicted that “audiences would get bored with it quite quickly”.

Simon Bucks, Associate Editor for Sky News and another key campaigner for allowing cameras into court recalled it had been 22 years to the day since the House of Commons was first seen on television. But a series of trials of MPs and peers, accused of fiddling their expenses and stealing taxpayers' money, had denied television access. Simply facilitating public galleries was inadequate, argued Bucks. “Access to justice is dictated by geography and opportunity”; most people with a day job simply can't just turn up to see justice in action. The argument was one of public money - and public interest - in more ways than one. Bucks said he would have gone further by televising the trials of those involved in the August riots also.

Professor Eric Barendt had deep reservations. “My position is that of a sceptic”, he opened. “But I would draw a distinction between active proceedings and trial courts”. There was a real danger that if people know their evidence was being filmed, it would colour their evidence. But Barendt's chief anxiety was the “editorial discretion” bestowed to broadcasters – the temptation to cover the big criminal or libel cases for example, and those of breaking and entering. Like Ivan Lawrence, Barendt had concern for the defendant whose trial could have been determined by the coverage of the media.

ITN's Head of Compliance, John Battle, is responsible for making sure that the broadcaster adheres to good journalistic practice and gave examples of how the UK system was out of step with the rest of the world. “The case has now been made - filming in the courts is not a dangerous or revolutionary idea. The only courts British public don't get to see are their own courts!”. Would justice be reduced to tea-time entertainment, an X-Factor style programme? Maybe the ITV employee was not the best person to answer that question, but the public would be better informed every day on basic issues. The public would be better informed on sentencing too. And, as broadcasters of news, ITN would be better able to do its job and more accurately report the courts. “It's time to put the pencils and crayons away.”

There were many more expert voices to contribute to the conversation. Joshua Rozenberg of the BBC's Law in Action wondered “why now?” - having been the first person to broadcast, produce and commentate live from a court in the UK twelve years ago during the Pinochet case. A government transparency agenda, or just politically expedient? John Whittingdale wasn't able to elaborate but it was put to the panel that the riots had worried a government concerned that the public didn't understand the sentencing that had resulted from it. And even the lawyers on the panel did not seem to have a real objection to the filming of judgements. The law under the Contempt of Court Act already provided for 'fair reporting' of the law. But Professor Barendt was adamant that the media should not have any particular right to film a trial – particularly a criminal one - and if the Lord Chief Justice explicitly said 'no'.

The cameras in court debate will go on for some time. Justice appears to be very much in their ownership of a legal establishment for which there are countless considerations and arguments to consider, like any case put before them. The prosecution is, in this case, the united voice of the media who make a persuasive case for cameras in courtrooms opening up justice to all. Sir Ivan Laurence maybe expressed most succintly the view of a certain generation of legal professional. “I've been in the courts for fifty years – you haven't!”. But maybe we should all have been there.

Paul Prentice

Paul is the Media Society's News Editor, and works as a freelance journalist and public sector communications professional. You can read more of Paul's writing on his blog.