I remember, as a teenager, being taken by an uncle to watch one day of a lengthy murder trial at the Old Bailey. Next day, my uncle and I read a report of the day’s proceedings in The Daily Telegraph. It was as if we had been watching different proceedings. It taught me that two people can see the same thing quite differently. Whether this would happen with televised trials is hard to predict but, on balance, I think attempting it is worth the risk. It is hard to see how transparency can be achieved otherwise. And, there have been so many advances in technology that many of us have become used to meeting via Teams or Zoom in a way we could hardly have imagined a decade ago. I don’t feel uncomfortable, and I don’t see people “acting up”, at online meetings, so I doubt if they will during court proceedings. At least, not more than they do already!
I'm in the U.S. When I was young there were two local newspapers and both had brief case reports from the Supreme Court (In NYS the Common pleas courts are Supreme Courts), the County Courts . the local courts &c. Now there's only one newspaper owned by Gannett; they've even done away with the city desk. So it's quite bad here and I agree with the gist. Open the doors, let it be known.
I did my 1st oral presentation via internet c. 2022 in an intermediate appellate court in another State. The peculiar thing there is (a) you're proscribed from recording it and (b) no transcript is available !!
In so many ways, England is so far ahead of the U.S., it's embarrassing.
In my opinion, quality of media reporting is, in general, less than we used to think it was. And the willingness to publish material that sells media, has often outweighed quality.
It is possible that TV broadcasting may overcome that, but let’s not rush to judgement - broadcasting to the uninitiated must go hand in hand with education in order to improve understanding and to avoid misconception of what is being viewed.
Robert Z was ever even handed as a judge but the misgivings and reservations of criminal defence practitioners (and especially solicitors) lingered since ,over the forty seven years that I practised ,whenever more or less anything caused the aborting of a case or even its disruption, the default position of the courts and other agencies seemed to be to see just how the defence team might be blamed. I do so hope that there has been something of a sea change in that regard since I gave up treading the boards some seven years ago. It was scarcely surprising that in “my” time my colleagues overall were risk averse over ANY televising of court proceedings where that might have led to contamination of the process. Myself, I have long favoured greater transparency but decidedly and as the LCJ has indicated on a gradual and measured basis. I honestly think that the spectre of the O.J.Simpson trial still gives the judiciary and others pause for thought. All the same greater transparency and as we can hope a fuller awareness of how and why our system is as it is has to be a prize to be coveted. I write here hardly just about our fellow citizens generally but also - with honourable exceptions- about Parliamentarians and civil servants in the generic sense of that term. I am often surprised and troubled by the -usually well meaning- utterances of many influential and authoritative figures where what they say betrays their fundamental MISunderstandings of our system. If only a “telling it as it is” strand might be included in schools’ curricula -not just bland outlines but the underlying principles of the rule of law and due process and indeed the irreducible concept of equality before the law. I once heard a much respected educationist family member speak of the law needing to be a “broad church”- but no, as I responded to him, it needs to be inclusive in the fullest imaginable sense. Sorry for the length of this contribution; it seemed to ME at least that it needed saying.
The Scottish courts seem to be much further along this path than the English and Welsh ones. Have you watched the BBC series Murder Trial? It includes footage of witnesses giving evidence, and the reaction of the defendant in the dock. Some faces are not shown (e.g. jury members) and some voices are modified, but it’s clear that the film-makers have liberty to film and broadcast much of what goes on in court.
I remember, as a teenager, being taken by an uncle to watch one day of a lengthy murder trial at the Old Bailey. Next day, my uncle and I read a report of the day’s proceedings in The Daily Telegraph. It was as if we had been watching different proceedings. It taught me that two people can see the same thing quite differently. Whether this would happen with televised trials is hard to predict but, on balance, I think attempting it is worth the risk. It is hard to see how transparency can be achieved otherwise. And, there have been so many advances in technology that many of us have become used to meeting via Teams or Zoom in a way we could hardly have imagined a decade ago. I don’t feel uncomfortable, and I don’t see people “acting up”, at online meetings, so I doubt if they will during court proceedings. At least, not more than they do already!
I'm in the U.S. When I was young there were two local newspapers and both had brief case reports from the Supreme Court (In NYS the Common pleas courts are Supreme Courts), the County Courts . the local courts &c. Now there's only one newspaper owned by Gannett; they've even done away with the city desk. So it's quite bad here and I agree with the gist. Open the doors, let it be known.
I did my 1st oral presentation via internet c. 2022 in an intermediate appellate court in another State. The peculiar thing there is (a) you're proscribed from recording it and (b) no transcript is available !!
In so many ways, England is so far ahead of the U.S., it's embarrassing.
In my opinion, quality of media reporting is, in general, less than we used to think it was. And the willingness to publish material that sells media, has often outweighed quality.
It is possible that TV broadcasting may overcome that, but let’s not rush to judgement - broadcasting to the uninitiated must go hand in hand with education in order to improve understanding and to avoid misconception of what is being viewed.
Robert Z was ever even handed as a judge but the misgivings and reservations of criminal defence practitioners (and especially solicitors) lingered since ,over the forty seven years that I practised ,whenever more or less anything caused the aborting of a case or even its disruption, the default position of the courts and other agencies seemed to be to see just how the defence team might be blamed. I do so hope that there has been something of a sea change in that regard since I gave up treading the boards some seven years ago. It was scarcely surprising that in “my” time my colleagues overall were risk averse over ANY televising of court proceedings where that might have led to contamination of the process. Myself, I have long favoured greater transparency but decidedly and as the LCJ has indicated on a gradual and measured basis. I honestly think that the spectre of the O.J.Simpson trial still gives the judiciary and others pause for thought. All the same greater transparency and as we can hope a fuller awareness of how and why our system is as it is has to be a prize to be coveted. I write here hardly just about our fellow citizens generally but also - with honourable exceptions- about Parliamentarians and civil servants in the generic sense of that term. I am often surprised and troubled by the -usually well meaning- utterances of many influential and authoritative figures where what they say betrays their fundamental MISunderstandings of our system. If only a “telling it as it is” strand might be included in schools’ curricula -not just bland outlines but the underlying principles of the rule of law and due process and indeed the irreducible concept of equality before the law. I once heard a much respected educationist family member speak of the law needing to be a “broad church”- but no, as I responded to him, it needs to be inclusive in the fullest imaginable sense. Sorry for the length of this contribution; it seemed to ME at least that it needed saying.
The Scottish courts seem to be much further along this path than the English and Welsh ones. Have you watched the BBC series Murder Trial? It includes footage of witnesses giving evidence, and the reaction of the defendant in the dock. Some faces are not shown (e.g. jury members) and some voices are modified, but it’s clear that the film-makers have liberty to film and broadcast much of what goes on in court.