While I like the idea of Justice being seen to be done etc etc… the fact of the matter is that most court proceedings are lengthy and, at times, astonishingly dull. I can’t see many watching extended televised cases in courts. I can see some merit in edited highlights and it would be fascinating to see more of justice being done… but it will take a great deal of skill to present it in a watchable way – and, therein, lies the part of the problem – editing.
I’d pay good money, of course, to see barristers trying to jazz up a truly fascinating tax appeal or a Trusts case. Perhaps a dancing dog could be employed as junior counsel?
Adam Wagner of 1 Crown Office Row and an editor of the UK Human Rights blog , writing in Legal Week this week, has a very interesting article.
I’ll leave it to Adam Wagner to do the sensible stuff….worth a read.
It seems to me that this is thinking along the court case as a spectacle idea. There is absolutely no reason why it has to be this way – as broadband rolls out, it would be perfectly possible to just record video from courts under the control of the the clerk pf the court. It would be possible to delay broadcast to avoid accidental broadcast, and it is potentially rather cheap. Is there even scope to use video records in place of some laborious transcription? (although I realise that this might not be acceptable and wouldn’t provide for an easily searchable result).
Of course all this would mean that evidence and verdict will be open to endless scrutiny, but maybe a video record might avoid the implications of any faulty court records. It would mean that judges would have to be fairly thick-skinned and one would hope that they don’t follow the example of Scottish league referees who recently went into a sulk.
I assume that any issues of mis-reporting of cases through selective coverage in the media would have to be dealt with in the same way as I assume written reporting is. That’s assuming any such system exists…
Steve – the technology is there…. can’t imagine solicitors and barristers will be too keen on ‘Observers’ watching their every move and commenting on their ‘performance’ on Twitter et al 🙂
(As..sure as eggs is eggs…will happen)
Mind you… I am one of a handful of people… well… maybe more than a handful…who watches BBC Parliament late at night!)
Clearly the legendary ability of parliamentary TV coverage as a cure for insomnia has met its match in your case.
Or are you actually watching it out of interest – surely not.
This is one of those superficially attractive ideas but that does not make it a good idea. I see the issue on two levels: criminal trial courts and judge-only hearings. (The latter would include civil proceedings, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and Judicial Committee).
Criminal trial courts should not, IMHO, be televised. Witnesses frequently find the whole business intimidating as it is. They do not need to have further problems put their way.
Judge only hearings could be televised though there would have to be some exceptions – e.g. family cases. There should be no point in lawyers “grandstanding” before a judge.
Having said the above, I suspect that the likely “general public” audience would be quite small and many court hearings are pretty dull affairs other than to the participants. How many of the general public bother to watch televised Parliamentary debates / committee proceedings etc? Sadly, the general public is very uninformed about many things but that is because to gain knowledge you sometimes have to make some effort and most people can’t be bothered unless they are directly involved.
On reading Wagner’s piece I find that Chief Justice Scalia makes a point I have a lot of time for.
Should I consult a doctor, a priest or a lawyer?
I’m not surprised. Despite being voted out of X-Factor Wagner still clearly hankers after being in the TV limelight.