Thanks as ever for your interesting analysis. A small point- a standard claim for judicial review is ordinarily heard by a single judge in the Administrative Court. Where the case is considered significant in some way it will be heard before a divisional court consisting of one High Court judge and one Court of Appeal judge. But a regular JR will be heard by a single judge.
I wonder jf the proposal would be to cease televising in the rare cases where live evidence is given in a JR, at least for the oral evidence part.
Good point about oral evidence. The court always retains a discretion on broadcasting. I'd let the judges consider applications by witnesses to switch off the cameras for all or part of a hearing.
Thanks as ever for your interesting analysis. A small point- a standard claim for judicial review is ordinarily heard by a single judge in the Administrative Court. Where the case is considered significant in some way it will be heard before a divisional court consisting of one High Court judge and one Court of Appeal judge. But a regular JR will be heard by a single judge.
I wonder jf the proposal would be to cease televising in the rare cases where live evidence is given in a JR, at least for the oral evidence part.
Apologies for that error, now corrected.
Good point about oral evidence. The court always retains a discretion on broadcasting. I'd let the judges consider applications by witnesses to switch off the cameras for all or part of a hearing.