Croftons Solicitors LLP

The government is considering proposals to allow limited recording and transmission from courts and it is understood that David Cameron is to give his backing for limited coverage of certain trials. As with everything there are supporters and critics.

There are potential advantages to allowing such viewings. Supporters argue that it will improve the public’s understanding and confidence of the legal system if cameras were allowed. It is an overriding principle that “justice should be seen to be done” and this suggestion is very much in keeping with this principle, further ensuring transparency to proceedings.

That being said, the justice system has come along way in recent months / years. Cameras have been allowed in the Supreme Court for the last two years (but filming is currently banned in all other courts), news reporters are able to tweet and blog from the court room and in March 2011, the MOJ announced that Criminal justice statistics were set to become more transparent and user-friendly under changes.

But what about the impact on the communities that the government is so keen to see and invest in?

Tory MP Roger Gale said it risked turning justice into a reality show. The former TV producer said screening Parliament had resulted in grandstanding by MPs and a concentration on “juicy” extracts at the expense of less entertaining debates.

“I believe that the televising of the closing speeches in law courts and the passing of sentences will create the same effect as thrusting barristers seek to impress the media with fee-improving performances and the more eccentric members of the judiciary use the TV platform to address the nation,” he said. His thoughts are echoed by Labour peer Lord Alan Sugar who warned it could become “cheap reality TV a la judge Judy”.

There is a genuine risk that the whole process will be glamourised. For some, particularly in gangs, a prison sentence is a badge of honour and will only increase their reputation – the worse the crime, the more severe the sentence (you would hope) and the greater the reputation of the person who committed it. By giving them air time – there is a real risk that the young and easily impressionable, would be influenced and perhaps even aspire to those that they see.

Whilst not wishing to protect those that have committed crimes, there are those who are wrongly accused and the effect on their lives, the lives of their families and their jobs can be devastating. The media is known for jumping on bandwagons which can ruin peoples’ careers and lives. Our law is based on the fundamental principle that you are innocent until proven guilty. Take Rebecca Leighton (no relation), the nurse accused of poisoning, as an example. Her photo has been plastered across the news and her life has reportedly been ruined. She now requires professional assistance to reintegrate with the community in which she lives. And this is just from an image of her and the release of her name. We are talking about people’s lives, not a form of entertainment.

By giving such access to the media live, there is a real risk that this could actually cause greater problems to the judicial system – could it instill fear in witnesses, fear that they may appear on tv? That their identity would become known to a greater number of people? Could Jury members be influenced? Would their identities become known? Would details of previous convictions of the offender be given and cause them hardship should they later be acquitted?

Perhaps a solution could be that filming be allowed in courts but that they cannot be shown live. Only be shown once a ssupentence has been given (and with no showing where the verdict is not guilty), with the images to be severely restricted to that of the Judge and the offender. Keeping the identity of the Jury, witnesses and others restricted to the Court room and reports.

Even then, all it takes is for some of the media to decide not to play fair game – Hacking Scandal – and the potential damage to lives could be irreversible.

Simon Leighton, Managing Partner

Posted on 06.09.11

---

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website