Ban on filming in law courts to be lifted | Law | guardian.co.uk

Ban on filming in law courts to be lifted | Law | guardian.co.uk
(click link)

The UK Experience.

"x x x.

Announcing the decision on Tuesday, Clarke said: "The government and judiciary are determined to improve transparency and public understanding of courts through allowing court broadcasting. We believe television has a role in increasing public confidence in the justice system."

"Broadcasting will initially be allowed from the court of appeal, and government will look to expand to the crown court later. All changes will be worked out in close consultation with the judiciary."

Filming will be of judges' summary remarks only - victims, witnesses, offenders and jurors will not be filmed.

The televising of court is currently banned by acts of parliament and so legislation will be required to allow cameras into court.

A shift towards televising court has always been hampered by the spectre of OJ Simpson's trial in the US which degenerated into prime-time entertainment.

Television companies have been pressing for greater access to the highlights of court cases, and a consultation on the shift was undertaken by the previous Labour government but was eventually discarded.

Now the present government has revived the plans, believing a judicial pronouncement should become more of a moment of public reckoning. Officials believe transparency would aid public understanding of the court process and the idea has gained momentum in the aftermath of the riots.

After a Guardian report saying the prime minister was set to announce the change in the coming weeks, Clarke told Sky News on Tuesday morning he could see "no good reason" why television cameras should not be allowed in court to "record and give to the public the remarks of the judge". By the afternoon, the government had decided to push ahead.

Clarke also announced that new information on the performances of courts will be published in future to allow everyone to see how their local courts are working. This will include:

• Court-by-court statistics for the time taken for cases to be processed, from offence to conviction, allowing people to compare the performance of their local courts.

• Details on how many trials were ineffective and why they were ineffective.

• Anonymised data on each case heard at local courts and the sentences given.

• Details of how many people have been convicted or released from prisons in each area and how often they re-offended afterwards.

• From next May justice outcomes will be placed alongside crime data on police.uk so people can see what happens next after crimes are committed in their areas.

When the country's most senior court – the supreme court in Westminster – was opened in September 2009 it was fitted with cameras. As things stand it is the only court where footage is routinely available for broadcasters on request and has been televised live.

It allows visitors to watch appeals and judgments on televisions around the building without sitting in the courtrooms, but it is seen to be a different case since supreme court hearings do not involve witnesses being cross-examined or juries.

Cameras have been allowed in some Scottish courts under tight restrictions since 1992. The appeal of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi against his conviction for the Lockerbie bombing was televised in 2002.

Writing in the Guardian in December, the head of Sky News, John Ryley, suggested the trials of six MPs who were accused of misusing their parliamentary expenses were prime examples of public interest trials that would have benefited from being televised. Last month he renewed his call for televised sentencing in an open letter to Clarke

Sadiq Khan, Labour's shadow justice secretary, welcomed the announcement that certain aspects of court proceedings will be televised.

"Allowing the broadcast of judges' sentencing remarks could make the sentencing process more transparent and understandable," he said.

"However, it will be extremely important to ensure that careful controls are in place to protect jurors, victims and witnesses. We do not support the televising of anything that might make jurors, victims and witnesses vulnerable to intimidation.

"Our criminal justice system relies on victims and witnesses coming forward to give evidence and nothing should be done to jeopardise that.

"It is important that our justice system is open and accessible. If done well and responsibly, this could be an important step in achieving that."

x x x."