See - http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/669/Online_Exclusive%3A_Editor%E2%80%99s_blog_-_Time_to_bring_broadcasting_to_Court.html
"x x x.,
Time to bring broadcasting to Court
As Sky News initiates a campaign for cameras to be allowed to cover court proceedings in England and Wales, it is worth revisiting the constantly recurring debate as to whether such a development is welcome, desirable or even necessary. In my view, a reappraisal is well overdue, and the arguments against cameras in court are getting thinner to the point of dissipation.
“If the legislature is to be subject to far greater scrutiny so too must the judiciary, so the public can fairly judge the balance of responsibility between them,” says head of Sky News, John Ryley, launching their campaign.
“Far from being the downfall of the judicial system, I believe exposure to public scrutiny could be its saviour."
“If the legislature is to be subject to far greater scrutiny so too must the judiciary, so the public can fairly judge the balance of responsibility between them,” says head of Sky News, John Ryley, launching their campaign.
“Far from being the downfall of the judicial system, I believe exposure to public scrutiny could be its saviour."
He added that it would enable the public "to understand the constraints under which our judges operate - the complexities of many of the cases before them which are inevitably over-simplified in a 30 second news piece."
The significance of the democratic function of proper scrutiny of our judicial system cannot and must not be lost sight of. The presence of cameras in court is nothing new in Scotland, although their use has been very tightly controlled since they were permitted in 1992. In 2008 the Nat Fraser and Luke Mitchell appeal advisings were covered by cameras, but only under tight provisos which ensured that only the judge and the macer could be seen. Whilst this was welcome, it is overcautious, and there is no reason why proper televised court coverage cannot fully simulate the experience of attending court in person, warts and all.
The potential for the court to become a form of theatre or entertainment is often touted as a justification for evading the arguments for increasing the coverage. Aside from legitimate issues of juror anonymity or the temptation for advocates or even judges to perform to their increased audience, the real danger –it is said- that may insidiously arise from increasing the exposure of the court’s workings beyond its own walls of the court is that administration of justice itself may somehow become perverted.
This argument is specious and does not bear close scrutiny. Court itself is often very boring to all except the enthusiastic or those with special interest. The days of fearing the eyes of the television passed half a century ago, and whilst the quality of much of what is offered up by television as entertainment can be challenged, the maturity of the medium itself, and its potential, are tried, tested and woefully under exploited. The added dimension of near-universal digital access, a phenomenon only certain to expand as time passes, allows dedicated niche channels to broadcast any special area of interest without alienating the space available to the broad audience. They are capable of producing content that will not require editing, filtering, exposition or added filling to appeal to a common denominator. A specialist audience will lap it up. The model to follow and take inspiration from is not The X Factor, Cash in the Attic or Judge Judy. It is BBC Parliament that provides the template, where lengthy sessions of Parliamentary debate play out all hours of the day and night, no doubt to a small audience, but one that definitely welcomes it.
Even Holyrood TV has pioneered skilled, informative and well packaged live streams of its committees and consultations for years without attracting controversy or diluting the gravity and significance of its content. The ongoing sessions scrutinising the Legal Services Bill have been required desktop viewing at the offices of the Firm. If the process of making the law itself is capable of being wrested into a coherent television package, its denouement and execution in court itself should able to be translated too, with no fear of diminishing its import or prejudicing its conduct.
The Firm magazine is about to embark on its next poll of the Judges of Scotland. One of the reasons it is necessary to carry this exercise out is because there is no other forum or means of accounting for the behaviour of the Senators of The College of Justice. The court has demonstrated through the centuries that it does not fear scrutiny, which is why their doors are open to the public without restriction. Newspapers and the press have traditionally been the eyes and ears of the wider world who cannot make it in person, but now that technology allows the courts to be accessed with desktop or even smartphone ease, there is no sustainable argument that can be advanced to prevent the public observing the courts through the medium of a screen and a microphone, rather than in person. There are enough smart heads in television production to devise a package that ensures the administration of justice is not adversely affected. The presence of an audience beyond the walls of court should not give the judiciary or the advocates either stage fright or an opportunity to grandstand that is not in fact present every day before the live audience already.
Contempt of Court restrictions already exist to restrain the reporting of the wider media, so there is little danger of adverse follow up coverage. And if any outlet decided to try to cover the courts with a daily digest of drivel as they do populist shows such as Big Brother, if the existing contempt provisions are not sufficient, they can easily be updated. It has been long argued that they are ripe for an overhaul in the digital age. Now is the time to take the opportunity to update our legal coverage and the laws attending it, and in doing so, perhaps some proper understanding of justice could be provided to those with the patience and interest to follow it, as well as those who hitherto did not.
Edward R Murrow said over fifty years ago that television was a medium that had great under-exploited potential, and he argued that it should in fact be used for “exposure to ideas and the bringing of reality into the homes of the nation.”
“To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention,” he argued.
“But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.
“This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box.”
Now is the time, I would argue, to reverse the trend towards facile and trivial television by providing court coverage that is full, thorough and ranges across the work of the courts. To do so would advance the function of our democracy in the forum where it affects us most, when we are at the mercy of the state and our very liberty is at stake. If that does not deserve an audience, what does?
The potential for the court to become a form of theatre or entertainment is often touted as a justification for evading the arguments for increasing the coverage. Aside from legitimate issues of juror anonymity or the temptation for advocates or even judges to perform to their increased audience, the real danger –it is said- that may insidiously arise from increasing the exposure of the court’s workings beyond its own walls of the court is that administration of justice itself may somehow become perverted.
This argument is specious and does not bear close scrutiny. Court itself is often very boring to all except the enthusiastic or those with special interest. The days of fearing the eyes of the television passed half a century ago, and whilst the quality of much of what is offered up by television as entertainment can be challenged, the maturity of the medium itself, and its potential, are tried, tested and woefully under exploited. The added dimension of near-universal digital access, a phenomenon only certain to expand as time passes, allows dedicated niche channels to broadcast any special area of interest without alienating the space available to the broad audience. They are capable of producing content that will not require editing, filtering, exposition or added filling to appeal to a common denominator. A specialist audience will lap it up. The model to follow and take inspiration from is not The X Factor, Cash in the Attic or Judge Judy. It is BBC Parliament that provides the template, where lengthy sessions of Parliamentary debate play out all hours of the day and night, no doubt to a small audience, but one that definitely welcomes it.
Even Holyrood TV has pioneered skilled, informative and well packaged live streams of its committees and consultations for years without attracting controversy or diluting the gravity and significance of its content. The ongoing sessions scrutinising the Legal Services Bill have been required desktop viewing at the offices of the Firm. If the process of making the law itself is capable of being wrested into a coherent television package, its denouement and execution in court itself should able to be translated too, with no fear of diminishing its import or prejudicing its conduct.
The Firm magazine is about to embark on its next poll of the Judges of Scotland. One of the reasons it is necessary to carry this exercise out is because there is no other forum or means of accounting for the behaviour of the Senators of The College of Justice. The court has demonstrated through the centuries that it does not fear scrutiny, which is why their doors are open to the public without restriction. Newspapers and the press have traditionally been the eyes and ears of the wider world who cannot make it in person, but now that technology allows the courts to be accessed with desktop or even smartphone ease, there is no sustainable argument that can be advanced to prevent the public observing the courts through the medium of a screen and a microphone, rather than in person. There are enough smart heads in television production to devise a package that ensures the administration of justice is not adversely affected. The presence of an audience beyond the walls of court should not give the judiciary or the advocates either stage fright or an opportunity to grandstand that is not in fact present every day before the live audience already.
Contempt of Court restrictions already exist to restrain the reporting of the wider media, so there is little danger of adverse follow up coverage. And if any outlet decided to try to cover the courts with a daily digest of drivel as they do populist shows such as Big Brother, if the existing contempt provisions are not sufficient, they can easily be updated. It has been long argued that they are ripe for an overhaul in the digital age. Now is the time to take the opportunity to update our legal coverage and the laws attending it, and in doing so, perhaps some proper understanding of justice could be provided to those with the patience and interest to follow it, as well as those who hitherto did not.
Edward R Murrow said over fifty years ago that television was a medium that had great under-exploited potential, and he argued that it should in fact be used for “exposure to ideas and the bringing of reality into the homes of the nation.”
“To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention,” he argued.
“But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.
“This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box.”
Now is the time, I would argue, to reverse the trend towards facile and trivial television by providing court coverage that is full, thorough and ranges across the work of the courts. To do so would advance the function of our democracy in the forum where it affects us most, when we are at the mercy of the state and our very liberty is at stake. If that does not deserve an audience, what does?
Steven Raeburn
Editor
Editor
x x x."
