Skip to main content

TV in court

I was asked to appear in a debate on Sky News this evening to talk about TV cameras being allowed into court rooms.  I didn't do it for one simple reason.  I've put my back out and can barely walk never mind ride a motorbike to a TV studio then concentrate on and take part in a serious debate.  So, I thought I'd put a short discussion up on here instead.

I am personally quite apathetic toward the whole idea.  As a lawyer I obviously love the sound of my own voice so any chance to appear on TV and have a video of myself talking is a very welcome opportunity.

On the one hand, I can see that witnesses might be put off by the idea of appearing in court knowing that what they say will be filmed.  But, I suspect that you might also find that some victims welcome the idea of the chance to tell their side of the story and expose the person who has done something to them as dishonest, violent, or whatever the offence happens to be. 

It's also important to remember that courts already have powers in place to protect witnesses and make the giving of evidence much easier for them.  For example, I conducted a trial recently where the defendant was accused of ABH on his two-year-old daughter.  For obvious reasons the daughter wasn't giving evidence; however, her mother did give evidence.  In that case the mother had told the police that she wasn't happy being questioned by the defendant so the court barred him from asking her questions.  He therefore had to instruct me to conduct the cross-examination.  The court can also order screens to be put in place that prevent both the defendant and anybody in the public gallery from seeing the witness.  There is also the option of evidence being given via a video link where the screens are only viewable by the lawyers, judge and jury. 

So, we can see that in reality there is no reason why the quality of evidence should be hampered by the introduction of televised trials.

In favour of introducing television cameras to court is the argument that at present many people seem to think that courts let people off easily or that courts are heavily biased in favour of the guilty.  People also have the odd idea that sentences are far more lenient than they would like - something which is consistently disproved when the public are given the facts of crimes and asked to pass the sentence they feel appropriate.  Allowing courts to be televised will let people see what really happens, why decisions are really made and how courts arrive at the sentences they impose on people.

On the whole I think that televised court rooms is probably a good idea.

Comments

  1. As a layman I can only look at the example of the House of Commons, where the already-poor quality of debate dropped sharply once politicians realised they could be on television: it became all about sound-bites and grandstanding. I don't see why judges should be given an even harder time of keeping order than they have already.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't think that judges have a particularly hard time controlling their courts at the moment and I don't see that changing with the introduction of televised courts.

    One reason why politicians go in for the sound bite is because their objective is ultimately to get on TV to get more publicity so they get re-elected at the next election or promoted in Government, etc.

    The objective of the lawyer is, of course, to build his reputation but he won't do that by making silly sound bites but then losing cases. In the end, for a lawyer to get a great reputation he needs to win.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…