broadcasting courts: summary of responses to /http:/ · pdf filedetails o f th e r sponse to...
TRANSCRIPT
Broadcasting Courts
Response to Consultation CP(R) 28/04 30/06/2005Response to consultation carried out by the Department forConstitutional Affairs.
Contents
Introduction 3
Background 4
Summary of responses 7
Responses to Specific Questions 9
The broadcasting courts discussion forum 37
Conclusion and Next Steps 42
Consultation Co-ordinator contact details 43
The Consultation Criteria 44
Annex A – List of Respondents 45
1
Introduction
This document is the post-consultation report for the consultation paper, Broadcasting Courts.
It covers:
� the background to the consultation;
� a summary of the responses to the consultation paper;
� details of the response to the specific questions raised in the consultation paper; and
� conclusion and next steps.
Further copies of this report and the consultation paper can be obtained by contacting Lorna Venters-Olajide at the address below:
HMCS Civil, Family & Customer Services
Clive House, 5th Floor
70 Petty France
London SW1H 9HD
DX 14800 Westminster 7
Email: [email protected]
This report is also available on the Department’s website at: www.dca.gov.uk
3
Background
1. The consultation paper ‘Broadcasting Courts’ was published on 15 November 2004. This consultation made no proposals but sought views on the complex and sensitive issues around broadcasting court proceedings. The purpose of the consultation was to encourage public debate on the current prohibition and establish whether there was a need for change.
2. At present, the law prohibits taking photographs (including television, film or video) in court, or broadcasting any sound recording made in court. Information for the public about what happens in court, and about the details of a particular case, is drawn from journalists’ accounts in newspapers and on television, and sketches made from memory by court artists.
3. Since the banning of photography in 1925, and particularly in the past twenty-five years, the question of broadcasting court proceedings has been raised several times. It has been argued that enabling people to hear and see what goes on in court would have educational benefits, and would increase confidence in the judicial system.
4. The arguments put forward in favour of broadcasting centre around the requirement that justice should be “seen to be done”. This itself is a statement with various interpretations: that the public should perceive what is done in court as just; that the public should oversee (or supervise) what is done in court; or that courts deal with matters of such public interest, or of such human interest that the public should be able to see what happens. In addition, it is argued by some that showing court proceedings would increase knowledge; that it would increase public confidence in the criminal justice system; or that it would increase the accessibility of courts, making them less daunting for the lay person.
5. In considering whether to change current provisions, close attention needs to be paid to the needs of participants in court proceedings and how broadcasting of a case in which they were involved might affect them. Of particular concern is the potential impact on victims of crime, witnesses and jurors. No change to make our courts more open and more accessible should worsen or jeopardise in any way the position of victims or other vulnerable witnesses. There would need to be extremely strong arguments in favour of permitting broadcasting if it
4
was likely to have an impact on people’s willingness to take part in proceedings, or to make participation even more of an ordeal.
6. The complexity of the issues is increased by the number of different types of courts and proceedings which could be affected, the stages each case goes through, and the different participants involved. Some proceedings are held in private, or are the subject of reporting restrictions. It is clearly unlikely that these would ever be available for broadcast.
7. Finally, there is the question how any permitted broadcasting should be regulated. “Broadcasting” itself is a term used to cover a range of options – broadcasting in the traditional sense of television and radio, whether digital or analogue, but also use of the internet which would have different implications.
8. Most jurisdictions where broadcasting (particularly via television) is allowed apply strict rules. These govern what may be recorded, and what may be shown, and allocate responsibility for decisions on these rules, and for decisions in individual cases. International experience, and the experience of televising Parliament, offer various models, and there may be existing organisations which could take on this task or act as the model for a new authority.
9. To encourage members of the public to participate in the debate, the DCA placed not only the consultation paper, but also an interactive version of the questionnaire on the DCA website. To cater for those who wanted to express their views in a more immediate way, we also established a discussion forum on the DCA website.
10. Core stakeholders were given the opportunity to explore the issues in more depth at a seminar held by the DCA on 10 January 2005. The seminar benefited from the participation of Ministers and of several broadcasters, academics and lawyers with a high profile in this area including the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton; Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Chris Leslie M.P.; the Deputy Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Judge; Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC; John Cooper and Mark Stephens. The seminar was chaired by Marcel Berlins and included input from Australia by video link from a judge experienced in being broadcast, Justice French, and a leading academic, Daniel Stepniak. The papers prepared by speakers, and a transcript of the plenary session, are archived on the DCA website (http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/courts/seminar.htm).
5
11. The Consultation period closed on 28 February 2005 and this report summarises the responses, including entries to the discussion forum, and indicates how the consultation process influenced the further development of policy in this area.
A breakdown of respondents is at Annex A.
6
Summary of responses
1. A total of 259 responses to the consultation paper were received.
Individuals
Non court users Court users Judiciary Lawyers Court staff Other
201
68 37 8 48 7 33
(the majority of “other” individual respondents were academics or law students)
Organisations
Representing the judiciary
Representing the legal profession Government department or agency Police, National Probation Service or Prison Service Voluntary or Community organisations Representing broadcasting and media organisations Other
58
3
15 10 6 11 9 4
2. The consultation questionnaire invited respondents to consider a wide range of options for broadcasting various aspects of court proceedings and to respond in a multiple choice tick box format. There were a further four open questions in which respondents could develop their views. Where respondents provided a written document rather than a questionnaire, a “mock” questionnaire was completed on the basis of a careful reading of their response, to ensure that their views were reflected in the numerical analysis.
3. The responses divide, in varying degrees depending on the question, into those who favour broadcasting court proceedings and those who oppose it entirely. For the most part, the former group were in favour of broadcasting on the
7
grounds of public accessibility and public scrutiny. Most based their support for broadcasting around principles of open justice, but some were clearly influenced by the belief that they had suffered injustice as a result of the conduct of their case by lawyers, the judge or the court system in general. In their view, these experiences would have been exposed or prevented if proceedings were broadcast.
4. Those opposed to broadcasting court proceedings expressed strong concerns about the protection of participants, the right to a fair trial and the integrity of the UK judicial system. Some based their response on their own experience as a participant in proceedings, especially as a witness, or expressed their concern at the prospect of being a participant in a broadcast trial. Many others felt that television was synonymous with entertainment and were worried about the effects televising might have on proceedings. These differing views are reflected in the answers to specific questions.
5. The discussion forum received 17,624 hits between 15 November 2004 and 31 January 2005. There were 982 unique visitors to the site, of whom 298 visited more than once. 360 visits were from visitors based in the United States, and 12 from visitors based in France. On weekdays, the site received an average of 39 visits per day, and an average of 45 visits per weekend. In total, between 15 November and 27 February, 33 entries about court broadcasting were lodged on the discussion forum. Two strands of this discussion are reproduced after the Responses to Specific Questions. The full discussion forum can be viewed on the DCA website at http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/courts/discuss/index.htm.
8
Responses to Specific Questions
(Questions 1-4 asked about the respondent and/or their organisation)
Q5. In principle, do you think it should be allowed or prohibited to broadcast proceedings in:
Prohibited % Allowed in some circumstances % Allowed %
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Type
of C
ourt
The Crown Court
Magistrates’ Courts
Civil Courts
Court of Appeal (Criminal)
Court Of Appeal (Civil)
Small Claims Courts
Family Courts
Coroners’ Courts
Tribunals
Courts – Martial
55
59
53
44
46
61
77
58
54
55
24
19
24
27
26
19
13
23
26
23
21
22
23
29
27
20
10
19
20
22
As the chart shows, although there was strong opposition to the broadcast of most types of proceedings, a majority favoured allowing broadcasting, or broadcasting in some circumstances, in both the Criminal and Civil Courts of Appeal.
There was a substantial difference between responses to Q5 from individuals and those from organisations. A large majority of individuals felt that broadcasting should be prohibited in all courts apart from the Court of Appeal (Criminal) where only 48% felt it should be prohibited. Of those who identified themselves as court users, 54% and 51% felt that broadcasting should be allowed at least in some circumstances in the Court of Appeal Criminal and
9
Civil divisions respectively. Of these 32% felt it should be allowed outright in both courts.
In contrast, the majority of organisations which responded were in favour of either allowing broadcasting, or allowing it in some circumstances, in all courts except the Family Courts where 56% felt it should be prohibited.
Q6. In principle, do you think it should be allowed or prohibited to broadcast the following stages of proceedings:
Prohibited % Allowed in some circumstances % Allowed %
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Opening and closing statements by lawyers
Examination/cross examination of witnesses
Summing up by the judge
Delivery of verdict/decision
Delivery of sentence/order
46
63
42
42
43
20
19
21
21
20
33
18
37
36
38
The majority of respondents felt that broadcasting witnesses’ involvement in proceedings should be prohibited, but felt that broadcasting other stages of court proceedings, particularly the closing stages of proceedings, should be allowed, at least in some circumstances.
Organisations were in favour of allowing broadcasting of all stages of proceedings outright apart from those involving witnesses, where 49% felt that broadcasting should be prohibited and only 29% felt it should be allowed. 60% of responses from organisations indicated that the delivery of sentence/ order should be broadcast.
Individual respondents did not favour broadcasting either opening and closing statements by lawyers or the examination/cross-examination of witnesses, with 52% and 66% respectively in favour of prohibition. For other stages of proceedings
Stag
e of
pro
ceed
ings
10
there was a majority in favour of either allowing broadcasting, or allowing it in some circumstances.
Of witnesses who responded, 67% were in favour of a prohibition on the broadcasting of witnesses’ involvement in proceedings. 67% of lawyers responding indicated they would prefer to prohibit broadcasting of opening and closing statements by lawyers.
Q7. To what extent do you support or oppose the following broadcast options?
Strongly oppose % Oppose % Support % Strongly Support %
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Filming and video recording in court
Still photography in court (even if filming or video recording continues to be prohibited)
Sound recording in court (even if filming or video recording continues to be prohibited)
Broadcasting of text from court (even if filming or video recording continues to be prohibited)
Broadcasting on the internet from court
Dedicated television channel to show only court proceedings
48
38
37
19
50
50
10
24
15
19
13
13
18
21
23
38
18
16
24
17
24
25
19
21
The chart shows the majority of respondents either strongly oppose or oppose all broadcasting options except for broadcasting text from court against which there is currently no prohibition. Sound recording without accompanying pictures was the least strongly opposed option for broadcasting.
There was strong opposition to broadcasting options from individual respondents with experience of court proceedings. 80% of lawyers and 86% of court staff either opposed or strongly opposed filming and video recording in court overall. More
11
than 50% of individuals strongly opposed filming and video recording in court, internet broadcasting and broadcasting court proceedings via a dedicated channel.
The majority of organisations either strongly supported or supported all broadcasting options, with the least support being for still photography where 42% were either opposed or strongly opposed to the option. Broadcasters and media organisations were the most in favour, 100% either strongly supporting or supporting all options except still photography which 29% opposed.
Q8. Please give any further comments about different broadcasting options. You may wish to consider:
� Options for broadcasting to the widest possible audience � Options for broadcasting to a local community
Below is a sample of comments made by respondents, grouped into topic areas.
Broadcasting to different audiences:
� “I would like to see broadcasting to the widest possible audience, generally bringing things into the public eye tends to raise standards and I think that is likely to happen to the Criminal Justice System.”
� “If broadcasting were to take place it should be on a national level, and only where the case involves the public as a whole.”
� “At the local level, it would be very beneficial to see what is happening in criminal trials that do not make national news. If a feed were to be made available to local news productions, this would allow a greater confidence in the local area's criminal justice system, would make people more confident that justice was being done in their area, and I believe may even help to reduce crime levels.”
Broadcasting methods:
� “I can find no compelling reason to broadcast proceedings in the Crown Court or Magistrates Court. Open Justice has been more than adequately served by the print media for many years. The overriding principle surely must be compliance with Articles 6 and 8 as far as a defendant is concerned. Article 1 is surely adequately served by the print media. 'OJ Simpson' and now 'Michael Jackson' in the UK? Surely not!”
12
� “I believe that before the decision is taken to broadcast court proceedings, further steps could be taken to make it easier for members of the public to attend court proceedings in person.”
� “I think the current system of court reporting and the public gallery is sufficient, something like this should not end up becoming a warped form of entertainment.”
� “Broadcasting should be by an independent organisation with strict codes of practice. Delays in broadcasts should be considered until the end of the trial to remove the possibility of influence on proceedings.”
Type of proceedings
� “Almost all cases in the Court of Appeal and House of Lords should be broadcast. This would however be at the discretion of the Judge if the case is sensitive.”
� “Coroners proceedings might highlight local areas of concern eg industrial accidents”
� “In some circumstances judges could perhaps be shown giving judgement or passing sentence. They are to an extent public figures, but I would prefer things to remain as they are.”
Context:
� “Since the introduction of the Parliamentary Channel I have become interested in all aspects of its activity. The most striking thing I have found is the discrepancy between what I actually witness on the live broadcast (of PMQs, almost all Ministerial or Department Questions and the Debates) and what is then reported in the media, many times the reporting of events by both political or lobby correspondances on BBC, ITN, Channel 4 and Sky bears no resemblance whatsoever to events that I have witnessed. I now have no confidence that any of the media in the UK report Parliament in a truthful manner and strongly suspect that the courts are reported in the same way. It is no coincidence that I also have no confidence in the legal system and its processes in England, which appear through the prism of the media and collective community opinion to be both corrupt and venal. Open broadcasts with suitable protection of the identity for victims and vulnerable witnesses is essential to restore public faith in justice in all its forms.”
13
� “BBC Parliament channel has not sensationalised or devalued parliamentary proceedings. A similar, unselective model should be considered for Court proceedings. Restraints on broadcasts should be at the discretion of the court, on the merits of each case.”
� “It must not be made into programmes like the reality TV we get nowadays. It should be kept like televising Parliament is. Reletively high-brow, which is not intended to be elitist, but it must keep its integrity.”
� “In general, the only filming I believe should be allowed is for educational purposes within law schools, not for television broadcast. My view is that any television broadcasting will only serve as entertainment and through the various edits, will not provide a realistic view of the court process. The only exception to this would be a dedicated court tv that shows everything but, as I do not believe witnesses/victims and defendants should be filmed, this seems rather impossible.”
� “If cases are to be broadcast, then they should be broadcast in their entirety. Otherwise, people will be presented with edited 'highlights' which will not assist them in understanding the decision of the court when it is made. At the moment, people are happy to express an opinion about the outcome, or expected outcome of high-profile cases based on sketchy newspaper reports and when the outcome does not fit their expectations, they are disappointed and lose confidence in the system. Televisual coverage of the entire process would provide the most balanced account.”
� “In my personal experience, the local press arrive to report the prosecution opening speech and then return, sometimes, to collect the verdict. And that is mainly if the case has a salacious element to titillate the public. Small wonder, then, that when the outcome is not a conviction, the public are bemused. Having been presented with the prosecution outline of its case, the readers of the local paper are expecting a conviction. If there is to be broadcasting of court proceedings, it should be rigorously fair and independent, not designed to sell newspapers.”
14
Q9. Do you think it should be allowed or prohibited to broadcast the following participants?
Should be prohibited % Allowed with protection of identity % Allowed with consent % Should be allowed %
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Images of the victim in criminal proceedings
Lay witnesses giving evidence or being cross-examined
Expert witnesses (including police) giving evidence or being cross examined
The defendant during proceedings
The defendant during sentencing in criminal proceedings
Members of the jury at any stage in proceedings
Members of the jury when the verdict is being delivered
Lawyers for the prosecution
Lawyers for the defence
Judges/magistrates
Court staff
56
60
49
54
48
78
74
41
40
40
54
12
11
13
11
6
12
13
3
4
4
7
22
17
17
17
11
5
6
23
22
19
18
10
12
21
19
34
6
6
33
34
36
21
The responses show the majority of respondents felt that broadcasting images of victims, witnesses, jurors and court staff should be prohibited. In the case of defendants, the majority indicated that it should be prohibited during proceedings, but allowed, whether with protection of identity, consent or otherwise, during sentencing in criminal proceedings. Allowing the broadcasting of participants with identity protection received little support in the responses. The majority of respondents supported broadcasting participants who attend court in a professional capacity - though in the case of expert witnesses this was marginal – but in each case there was significant support for seeking participants’ consent.
Individual and organisational responses differed on broadcasting defendants, lawyers and judges, with organisations, on the whole, more in favour. 57% of individuals felt that the broadcasting of the defendant during proceedings should be prohibited compared to 38% of organisations. 50% of organisations favoured
15
allowing outright the broadcasting of images of the defendant during sentencing,while 53% of individuals favoured prohibition.This trend continued for broadcasting images of lawyers. The majority oforganisations felt that broadcasting prosecution (61%) and defence (62%) lawyers
should be allowed while 44% and 43% of individuals felt that broadcasting ofprosecution and defence lawyers respectively should be prohibited. 71% oforganisations felt that broadcasting of judges/magistrates should be allowed
outright compared to only 31% of individuals favouring this option and 45%
favouring prohibition.
75% of witnesses who responded were in favour of prohibiting the broadcasting ofwitnesses giving evidence or being cross-examined. Similarly 86% of court staffresponding to the consultation wanted to prohibit the broadcasting of court staffinvolved in proceedings. The majority of lawyers also favoured excluding the
participation of lawyers from any broadcasting.
Q10. Should the following participants be protected from potential harmful effects of broadcasting proceedings in which they are involved?
No % Yes % No Answer %
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Prot
ectio
n of
iden
tity
thro
ugh
face
/voi
ce d
isto
rtio
n:
Victims
Witnesses
Jurors
Defendants
Claimants
12
12
8
22
23
74
73
78
62
62
14
14
15
15
15
16
No % Yes % No Answer %
Perm
it br
oadc
astin
g of
app
eal
invo
lvem
ent i
n pr
ocee
ding
s Pr
ohib
it br
oadc
astin
g of
thei
r 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Victims
Witnesses
Jurors
Defendants
Claimants
28
29
21
34
34
61
60
67
54
53
11
11
12
12
13
No % Yes % No Answer %
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
case
s on
ly
Victims
Witnesses
Jurors
Defendants
Claimants
59
59
60
56
55
23
22
20
25
25
19
19
20
19
20
The charts show that respondents felt face/voice distortion and prohibiting broadcasting of a particular participant’s involvement in proceedings are the most effective way to protect participants from any harmful effects of broadcasting. It should be borne in mind that many respondents argued (e.g. in response to Q9) that lay participants should not be broadcast at all, even with protection of identity.
17
Q11. Please provide any further comments about the impact of broadcasting on participants.
Below is a sample of comments made by respondents, grouped into topic areas.
Defendants:
� “People who are found innocent will never be treated fairly when they come out, they will always be seen as the accused, therefore guilty.”
� “My main problem is with the defendant. I think they should only be shown if they give their consent - BUT - if they choose not to be shown will that influence the public’s view of their possible guilt? However, if the jury are unaware as to whether the defendant has chosen either course it could not affect their decision.”
� “This is not in the public interest, it is - like many things in the media - simply of interest to some of the public. Already people are harmed by being dragged through the courts and found not guilty, but the damage will be even worse if the performance is televised. I think that accused persons should not be identified even by name or image, until proven guilty. It is not necessary to crucify people in order for justice to be seen to be done.”
� “Age of defendants should not always guarantee anonymity, as an example the Jamie Bulger case should have been broadcast because of the horror of the crime. It is time the young learnt that if they insist on breaking the law, their age will not be a protection for them. The public have a right to know who the criminals of our society are so we can protect ourselves against them.”
� “It should not be forgotten that defendants are innocent until proven guilty and if there is to be one rule for one side, then there should be an equal rule for the other. If cases are to be broadcast, then the full picture should be put before the public in the same way that it is put before those member of the public who choose to attend court. Special measures would still apply, but everything that the public can see should be shown to the wider public.”
� “Identifying the defendant could lead to lifelong stigma being attached to that person, even if subsequently absolved, if for example the defendant had been accused of rape or sexual offences against children.”
18
� “Members of the public should have the option of not being broadcast, broadcast with protection of identity or full broadcast. The defendant should also have this option. If, however, the defendant is convicted, they lose this right.”
Victims:
� “As clearly stated in the paper, courts are already public and thus, by definition, the lives and affairs of the victim are brought into the public, whether they want them to be or not. Should criminal cases be broadcast, this will simply bring this even more into the public, reaching vastly larger numbers of people through television. This would be the case irrespective of whether or not the victim was filmed. This is an aspect that was not raised in the paper and I think it should be considered. People should ask themselves if they would want details of their personal (often very personal) lives broadcast on national TV.”
� “If broadcasting is allowed and a victim or defendant does not want it to be broadcast certain steps should be taken to hide their identity or certain parts of their evidence; for example a rape victim may not want the details of her/his rape broadcast as this may have a huge impact on family or the possibility of harassment from individuals who recognise the individuals in the case.”
� “Victims and witnesses risk being further harassed by those sympathetic to the other party.”
� ” A victim could also be branded a liar if the defendant was not convicted even if only on a technicality.”
Witnesses:
� “I am very worried that broadcasting court proceedings will cause witnesses to be reluctant to come forward. Any broadcasting should only cover appeals, and then only the process and result.”
� “As a practising barrister, for both Prosecution and Defence, one of the biggest problems I face is getting witnesses to come forward and then give evidence. This is likely to be worsened if witnesses are exposed to broadcast publicity, and has far-reaching implications for witness-intimidation etc.”
� “Could affect ability to assess credibility of witnesses - eg nervousness from being in front of camera could come across negatively. Could discourage witnesses from giving evidence (which can be difficult in civil and employment
19
tribunal cases already). Could discourage witnesses from giving evidence on personal/private/emotional matters, for example describing the effect on their mental health.”
� “It is vital that Counsel or solicitors, when advising clients, and seeking witnesses etc., will be able to GUARANTEE that no part of the proceedings will be filmed or broadcast IN ADVANCE, so that a witness, for example, when giving a witness proof to solicitors will know that he will not be broadcast: anything short of this, for example, leaving the decision on filming to the first day of the trial, will act as a severe hindrance to the administration of justice.”
� “Other countries broadcast cases without problems. The argument about witness intimidation doesn't leave the starting blocks. Their faces are visible in court to would-be intimidators so what’s the difference in court on TV.”
Jurors:
� “I have seen the distress that serving on a jury has had on people close to me. This proposal would increase that distress by many orders of magnitude but would serve no benefit in the cause of justice. There may well be others who would relish the "fame" that the exposure could bring but I would regard that as an additional argument against the proposal.”
� “In the event of a re-trial at the Crown Court, the fact that the original trial has been broadcast may make it impossible to select a fresh jury. It could also increase the chance that jury members will be intimidated”
Lawyers:
� “Negative impacts on Barristers and other legal representatives - for example making them more nervous in front of the cameras, impacting on decisions as to what applications or submissions to make or what to cross-examine on. It could make them subject to unwelcome media attention, particularly when the cab-rank rule is not properly understood or where they become "famous" and possibly subject to media intrusion in their private lives.”
Personal impact:
� “I, for one, would not give evidence in court if I thought my image would be used by the media for entertainment purposes - and there is no other reason for wanting pictures.”
20
� “A personal view: circumstances could arise at any time in which it might be my duty to act as a witness or a juror. I would carry out this obligation, but the idea that my voice or picture might be broadcast fills me with real horror. It is clear that the media, in particular the tabloid press, would delight in mocking anyone's dress, hairstyle, mannerisms etc.”
� “I know that if I was a defendant I would be almost completely unable to give evidence if I knew I was being filmed - with probably dire effects on the justice I would receive.”
� “I am a practising Barrister. I do not wish the whole World to identify me as such when I am not working and, therefore, will object to any filming of me when working. Are civil servants or other professionals subjected to being filmed and broadcast when undertaking highly sensitive and difficult work?”
Impact on participants in general:
� “I have a slight concern that the unfettered broadcasting of proceedings might have the effect of discouraging members of the public seeking justice from so doing. The least ambiguous way of avoiding this potential effect would be not to broadcast proceedings, at least in the "mass media" sense that seems to be implied by the consultation. I doubt that many people would be discouraged from using the courts to pursue justice for the reason I suggest if recording of proceedings were effected in such a way that it would be unusual for such recordings to be accessed other than for "serious" purposes (e.g. professional education, professional academic research or perhaps personal academic interest).”
� “I believe that information will flow more naturally without the presence of video or television cameras which can often be intrusive. A court of law is already a daunting place for many and the introduction of cameras where everything is recorded could prove frightening for many people who are not used to these situations.”
� “The TV viewer should be considered to be sitting in the public gallery. What is apparent to a court visitor should be apparent to a TV viewer.”
� “Court is a private matter that causes untold stress with participants including lawyers. The public have other means to have trust in the system without watching private matters for entertainment. Where the issues involve the public at a national level then the participants such as government representatives
21
should be open to broadcasting (showing their identity etc...) as they have already agreed that open government is best policy.”
22
Q12. To what extent do you think the following should influence any decision to allow broadcasting of court proceedings?
No influence on the decision % Little influence on the decision % Some influence on the decision % Strong influence on the decision %
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
The administration of justice (that justice is done)
Justice being seen to be done (public confidence in the justice system)
Educating the public (better understanding of the justice system)
Public interest in the case (because the outcome will have implications for other people or cases)
Human interest in the case (because the case involves celebrities or awakens strong feelings)
Making courts more accessible to the public (less daunting for those who have to attend)
Historical interest (for documentaries or the national archive)
Impact on people involved in the case
11
17
17
29
60
23
36
12
4
11
20
17
15
18
25
10
13
30
35
31
14
32
23
19
71
42
28
23
10
27
16
59
The responses show a majority belief that two considerations: the administration of justice (that justice is done) and the impact on people involved in the case, should have a strong influence on any decision to allow the broadcasting of court proceedings. The majority of respondents felt that human interest in a case should have no influence on any decision to allow broadcasting and that historical interest in a case should have little or no influence.
The responses from individuals and organisations largely agreed on which issues should have an impact on any decision to allow broadcasting of court proceedings, with organisations on the whole attributing a stronger influence to the options than individuals. When considering the impact on people involved in the case, 72% of organisations believed it should have a strong influence compared to 57% of individuals. 77% of organisations felt that educating the public should have an
23
influence on any decision to broadcast (46% felt this should have a strong influence), compared to 60% of individuals. All of the broadcasting and media organisations and voluntary organisations responding also felt that educating the public should have an influence on any decision to allow broadcasting.
Q13. How far do you agree or disagree that broadcasting court proceedings would…
Strongly disagree % Disagree % Agree % Strongly agree %
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Increase public confidence in the judicial system
Enable public scrutiny of court proceedings
Make courts more accessible to the public
Educate the public about how the judicial system works and what happens in court
Give a better idea of what 'really happened' in a particular case
Reduce coverage of proceedings in newspapers
31
16
18
15
21
41
26
24
24
22
27
40
21
29
32
35
30
14
22
31
26
28
22
5
The chart shows that respondents do not believe that broadcasting court proceedings would increase confidence in the judicial system with the majority either disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. However, the majority of respondents did agree or agree strongly that broadcasting would enable public scrutiny, make courts more accessible, educate the public about how the judicial system works and give a better idea of what happened in a particular case. There was strong disagreement that broadcasting of court proceedings would reduce coverage of proceedings in newspapers.
Organisations were more positive than individuals when considering the potential impact of broadcasting court proceedings on the public, with a greater proportion agreeing strongly with the options. In contrast to the overall response, and 62% of
24
individual responses, which disagreed that broadcasting would increase confidence in the judicial system, 67% of organisations believed public confidence would be increased (with 37% strongly agreeing).
63% of lawyers disagreed that broadcasting court proceedings would give a better idea of what really happened in a case, contrasting with the majority of individual respondents who felt that it would.
Q14. Please provide any further comments about the impact of broadcasting on the public.
You may wish to consider whether there are items of court proceedings which might be of particular interest to people at local, rather than national, level and what these might be.
Below is a sample of comments made by respondents, grouped into topic areas.
Education:
� “It would also be a good training tool for the Judiciary, and the legal professions in general. I myself am an aspiring Barrister, and would greatly benefit from being able to view cases on TV, instead of having to go on the work-experience placements to the courts, although these are very helpful. In terms of schools and education, this would also be a good supplementary edition to the now compulsory citizenship classes that include an element of legal understanding.”
� “I run an Inquest Drugs Awareness Program. To date, I am pleased to say that I have had nothing but positive feedback from all who have attended the inquests. Clearly, if I was able to get the message across to a wider audience, it would have a far greater impact. From an education and public interest point of view, there may well be a very good case to be made for the broadcasting of that sort of Inquest, particularly when it is produced in a sophisticated and serious manner.”
� “With proper protection for the vulnerable, filming or broadcasting should be allowed whenever possible. It would assist in the training and appraisal of lay magistrates.”
� “Some of the aims, such as education and public scrutiny can be obtained by other means. Education can be achieved by mock trials and information films, without the need for real footage. Public scrutiny already takes place and
25
broadcasting may encourage the wrong kind of scrutiny and be more sensationalist.”
Open justice:
� “The primary value of broadcasting is to enable honest people to see exactly what happens in the court room.”
� “What matters is that the justice system works and is seen to be working. Part of this is public involvement and interest, which comes from understanding and observation. This is what should benefit from broadcasting. Its impact on the media, viewing figures, and other cynical commercial considerations should have no relevance here because court is about real lives, not TV drama or winning press awards.”
Entertainment / human interest:
� “The courts exist to serve the interests of justice not the commercial interests of digital television. There must be a reiteration of the principle that open justice in its current form is in the public interest and not there to pander to the 'interests of the public’ as determined by the media.”
� “It is a nonsense that the media use such excuses as 'educating the public' and 'making courts more accessible'. This is purely for entertainment and ratings. What is needed is more intelligent, in-depth written reporting, not yet more soundbites and incriminating pictures - not all of us are fortunate enough to be eternally photogenic, we can all look shifty or guilty or have inappropriate expressions and should not be judged on it.”
� “It is vital to distinguish between the public interest and what the public find interesting. Many people would love to watch a local rape or murder trial, especially if they knew the victim, defendant or witnesses. They would also probably be interested in reinstating the stocks for local offenders.”
� “It is essential to avoid using broadcasting to sensationalise what goes on. Any information should be of a factual nature, relating to the process and not concentrating on personalities.”
Historical interest:
� “I could envisage broadcasting of the appeal courts because I believe the senior judges would in no way be influenced by the existence of cameras. That
26
could perhaps be justified for archiving and historical purposes. I cannot envisage a large audience for this type of broadcasting.”
Public scrutiny:
� “The courts and the legal system have lost much of the respect in which they were once held by the general public. Full freedom of access via the media would expose them to far more public scrutiny and sharpen up their act.”
� “Public scrutiny will increase through exposure, but it will be ill-informed and sporadic.”
Public confidence:
� “I cannot see that higly edited segments would give the public any idea of how courts work or provide them with confidence. On the contrary, as it is the sound bite elements that would most likely be broadcast, I see more potential for loss of confidence in how the system works.”
� “Unless someone watched an entire case from beginning to end, it is unlikely that they would be better educated about the legal process or the merits of the case (the public will not be given access to the underlying paperwork, for example). I disagree that public confidence would be increased as a result because it is unlikely that the media will report the daily business of the court. The media is free to publish this material now and it does not do so.”
� “I am not aware that there is any serious problem with confidence in the judicial system which needs to be resolved with these extreme methods.”
Accessibility:
� “I believe that although televising court proceedings would make courts more accessible to the public and would educate them about the judicial system, but the proceedings would still be extremely daunting for those who attend, perhaps more so in the knowledge that millions of people could be watching them!”
� “The court arena remains a source of much fascination and yet much myth for the general public. Allowing aspects to be broadcast would start to demystify it. I would like to see this also linked to the removal of 17th century dress in court, which most other jurisdictions seem to have accomplished without difficulty.”
27
� “It is written above that broadcasting might make it less daunting for those who have to attend. This is nonsense: anyone can attend Court and there is always a public gallery provided. Leaflets also explain what is going on, who sits where etc. Moreover, "editing" by broadcasters will give a very unreal impression of what goes on and will, in my view, seriously distort the important work that goes on in Court every day.”
� “Courts are meant to be intimidating, especially in criminal matters. Broadcasting proceedings may lead to a loss of respect for our court system and result in it being viewed as a source of entertainment.”
Public understanding:
� “The bench and the lawyers have a full understanding of the case and the rules relating to evidence, nothing short of the public understanding those rules will provide the public with a true understanding of the case. Should broadcasting happen then there must be a means by which the public are told why the case has been presented the way it has and why evidence has or not been presented. A case can only become of interest when the public have knowledge of the rules. Without that public confidence will fall.”
� “Essentially, broadcasting should be used not as a form of public entertainment, but as a means to allow greater understanding of the processes by which judicial decisions are made, and the rationale behind them. To that end, limited broadcasting of some decisions and related matters should be allowed, in order to counter the tabloid influence and increase trust in the generally very reliable judicial system, but on no account should the broadcasting be allowed to impede or influence the trial to the smallest degree.”
� “While a little knowledge might be said to be a dangerous thing, it surely represents an improvement over the near-ignorance of most people about how courts work, which in turn leads to the most serious misinterpretation about the system in the eyes of the public. The judiciary, in particular, will be distorted less in the public eye than if the public has only newspaper reportage to rely upon.”
� “The events in court are often unclear to the layman and so it may make the idea of appearing more daunting. This is particularly true of civil cases and technical appeals if they were televised.”
28
Q15. Which of the following should be covered in regulations? (Select all that apply)
Should be covered %
0 20 40 60 80
What is recorded (e.g. types of hearing: which participants; etc.)
How it is recorded (e.g. types of shot)
Context in which it is shown (e.g. editing)
The amount of interactivity
Anything else
85
80
81
70
18
The chart shows the majority of respondents felt that each of the options should be covered in any regulations governing broadcasting. The high percentage of respondents selecting all of the options indicates they believe any regulation should be comprehensive, covering each of the aspects described above in combination. Other suggestions for areas to be covered in any regulation included: the storage/retention of recorded material; the protection of participants and the degree of consent required; and any payment to participants.
Though a majority of both individuals and organisations indicated that what is recorded, how it is recorded and the context in which it is shown should all be included in any regulation of broadcasting, substantially fewer organisations supported including these aspects in regulation. When asked whether what is recorded - including which hearings, participants, etc. – should be covered in regulations, 56% of organisation felt that it should be covered compared to 91% of individuals.
Many groups felt very strongly that a combination of what is recorded, how proceedings are recorded and the context in which they are shown should be covered in regulations, with over 90% of lawyers, witnesses and jurors selecting all three options. On the issue of what is recorded, 98% of lawyers, 92% of witnesses and 100% of jurors felt that this should be included in any regulations.
29
100
Q16. Who should be responsible for regulations on broadcasting in general?
Should be responsible %
0 10 20 30
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs & Lord Chancellor
An individual/organisation similar to Parliament's Director of Broadcasting
An existing regulatory (please specify which)
21
16
18
37
2
7
(Select one)
The greatest number of respondents felt that the Lord Chief Justice/the judiciary should be responsible for regulations on broadcasting in general, though a lower level of support was shared between other options. Significantly, there was very little support for an existing regulatory body taking charge of any regulations on broadcasting.
Other suggestions about who should be responsible for regulations on broadcasting in general included a Parliamentary Committee, the Law Lords, a new regulatory body specifically set up for regulating the broadcasting of court proceedings, the Broadcasting Standards Council, and a witness/victim support agency.
The responses from individuals reflected the total sample with 39% indicating that the Lord Chief Justice/the judiciary should be responsible for regulating broadcasting in general. However this was not the same for respondents answering on behalf of organisations, where 36% indicated they believed a body including representatives of ‘stakeholder groups’ was the most appropriate option, with only 24% selecting the Lord Chief Justice/the judiciary.
30
40
Q17. Who should be responsible for decisions on broadcasting a particular case? (Select one)
Should be responsible %
0 20
Solely the judge/magistrates responsible for the case
The judge/magistrates and the body responsible for the regulations
The judge/magistrates and a separate organisation similar to Parliament's Director of Broadcasting
The judge/magistrates and the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor
The judge/magistrates and the Lord Chief Justice
Other (please specify)
28
16
12
11
18
16
The chart shows the greatest proportion of respondents felt that the judge/magistrates responsible for the case should be solely responsible for decisions on broadcasting in a particular case. The support for involving either the Lord Chief Justice or the body responsible for the regulations in decisions on individual cases indicates that a significant number of respondents believe that whoever is responsible for regulations in general should also be involved in decisions on particular cases.
Other suggestions for who should be responsible for decisions in a particular case included: a Parliamentary Committee; the Law Lords; an independent body; and all those who have a legitimate interest in the case including all participants, both parties and their legal representatives.
The most support for making the presiding judge/magistrates solely responsible for decisions on broadcasting a particular case came from organisations where 42% selected this option. Over 50% of organisations representing the judiciary, lawyers, government departments/agencies, and broadcasting and media organisations shared this view.
31
40
Q18. Which participants in a particular case should have a say in the decision whether it should be broadcast? (Select all that apply)
Should have a say %
0 20 40 60
Victim
Claimant
Defendant
Witness
Lawyers or lay representatives acting for defendant
Lawyers or lay representatives acting for claimant/prosecution
Other (please specify)
The majority of respondents felt that victims, witnesses, claimants and defendants should have a say in any decision to broadcast a case in which they are involved. The large number of boxes ticked indicates that respondents believed a combination of participants should be represented while making any decisions about broadcasting.
Other suggestions for participants who should have a say in any decision included: the judge/magistrates in charge of proceedings; the Lord Chief Justice, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor; a statutory body set up to administer broadcasting; the regulatory body; a body representing “stakeholder” groups; the Freedom of Information Commissioner; jurors; court staff including the court manager; and broadcasters/the media.
There was significantly less support amongst organisations for participants having a say in any decision to broadcast proceedings, with less than half believing any participants should be involved. Only 36%, 34% and 39% of organisations felt that witnesses, claimants and defendants respectively should have a say in any decision on broadcasting. 75% of witnesses responding felt that witnesses should be involved in this decision.
67
57
59
55
48
46
25
32
80
In contrast to the total sample which showed a majority believing that lawyers involved in a case should have no say in its broadcast, 71% of lawyers responding felt that the defence lawyer, and 65% that the prosecution lawyer should have a say.
Q19. Should any of these participants have a right to veto broadcasting in a particular case? (Select all that apply)
Should have a veto (select all that apply) %
0 20 40 60
Victim
Claimant
Defendant
Witness
Lawyers or lay representatives acting for defendant
Lawyers or lay representatives acting for claimant/prosecution
Other (please specify)
The chart shows a majority believe that the victim should have a right to veto broadcasting in a particular case, but there is also strong support for claimants, defendants and witnesses also having a veto. These responses develop on those to the previous question about which participants should have a say in any decision to broadcast a case, with a significant number of respondents feeling that participants should also be able to veto broadcasting.
Suggestions for others who should have a veto right included: the judge/magistrates in charge of proceedings; the Lord Chief Justice; the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor; a statutory body set up to administer broadcasting; the regulatory body; a body representing “stakeholder” groups; an independent body; an ombudsman type person; jurors; the court
60
44
49
40
33
31
19
33
80
manager; broadcasters/the media; the Bar Council; and “anyone within camera-shot”.
Substantially fewer respondents from organisations were in favour of any participants having a right to veto broadcasting in a particular case. 14% of organisations felt that claimants and witnesses should have a right to veto, and 16% that defendants should have a right to veto. In contrast 51% of individuals felt claimants should have a veto, 56% that defendants should have a veto and 46% that witnesses should have a veto.
Lawyers thought that the defendant, more than any other participant, should have a right to veto with 73% choosing this option. Broadcasting and media organisations believed that no participants should have a right to veto broadcasting in a particular case.
Q20. Do you think there should be a right to appeal against a decision to allow/prohibit broadcasting of a particular case?
No % Yes % No Answer %
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Right to appeal 18 70 12
A clear majority of respondents felt that there should be a right to appeal against any decision on broadcasting a particular case, whether the decision was to allow or prohibit broadcasting. There was a high degree of consensus between individuals and organisations on this issue.
34
Q21. Please provide any further comments about broadcasting court proceedings.
Below is a sample of comments made by respondents grouped into topic areas.
Open Justice:
� “I think it's improved Parliament and should improve the courts.”
� “The principle of "open justice" necessitates only that people CAN enter the public gallery of a court and view the proceedings if they choose to do so. Televising proceedings is an unnecessary extension of this principle. The workings of the courts need not be viewable by all, merely viewable by some if they choose to do so (and make the effort to attend in person) - it doesn't matter that you or I cannot attend in person, provided someone (anyone) can. Furthermore, is it really believed that the vast majority of people will watch televised proceedings as anything more than entertainment (although they will likely quickly be sorely disappointed)?”
� “The risk of negative consequences far outweighs any possible benefit. Remember the OJ trial? The argument that a trial should be open is no argument at all. It supports the right of a defendant to stop the State from conducting proceedings in secret, not the right of the broadcast media to make money out of the conduct of Judicial proceedings.”
� “Open justice means open courts and open courts means open to the public which should be achieved by any technical means.”
Public Confidence:
� “The value of broadcasting trials is to reduce the corruption of the UK legal system.”
� “Vital to consider all and anything which will rescue the judicial system from the contempt and cynicism in which it is currently held by so many citizens. If broadcasting will help to return credibility to the legal system, then good.”
� “Great idea. I don't think it will have much of an impact though come to think of it because no-one is going to be interested in broadcasting more than 0.1% of cases.”
35
� “I think the pressure to broadcast should generally be resisted: the proper aims that broadcasting could serve (of ensuring due public scrutiny, of justice being seen to be done, of educating the public) can be adequately served by existing modes of reporting and by other educational devices (including fictional cases), while the kinds of effect that broadcasting media, especially television, can have, the dangers of presenting distorted representations (which would be even more powerful than those in the printed media), and the all too likely effects on participants, all argue strongly against broadcasting.”
Effect of broadcasting on the trial process:
� “The current contempt of court legislation is designed to prevent trial by media and that relates primarily to the print media who on the whole do a pretty good job (with one or two notable exceptions) and marginally to broadcast media. Would it ever be possible to avoid trial by media if cameras were allowed in court?”
� “Allowing the broadcasting of cases will allow justice to be seen to be done, and will increase the public's knowledge of cases. Many fundamental questions however need to be addressed. What would happen, for instance, if the jury asked to see a recording of the evidence of a particular witness. At the current time judges can remind them of that evidence, will videos be shown to the jury in future.”
� “It is important to maximise access to justice, but justice itself is more important and unless a fair trial can be ensured, this will be compromised. Public opinion, increasingly driven and manipulated by the media, is a powerful tool or weapon and may easily preclude justice.”
36
The broadcasting courts discussion forum
Participants were asked to submit their views on the issues raised in the Broadcasting Courts Consultation Paper, or respond to views posted by others using the forum. Of those participants expressing a clear view on the subject, 15 were opposed to broadcasting (usually interpreted as televising) and 15 were in favour.
Those in opposition tended to focus on one of two areas. The first was concerns about the likely impact on those involved in court proceedings, especially witnesses. Several participants stated that they had experience as witnesses, and that “cameras in court would probably have stopped me from testifying – why do I want what happened several years ago open to anyone to watch on TV or even worse, the internet”. The second reason was the belief that televising trials “threatens and trivialises the very purpose of the court”. One participant commented: “justice is dramatic enough without Alan Titchmarsh describing what mens rea is”.
Those who were in favour of broadcasting also appeared to fall into two groups. One group believed that televising would be educational and have benefits including increasing the accessibility of court proceedings. The second group was made up of those who had had frustrating experiences in court which left them with a strong sense of injustice. These participants argued that televising court proceedings would expose any bad practice by judges, lawyers, or court staff, thus preventing such experiences for others. In one participant’s opinion: “if we get TV coverage of the courts, then the courts, judges and counsel will all have to start behaving themselves (Hopefully)”.
Below are two strands of discussion entered in the forum. The discussion forum can be viewed in full on the DCA website at http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/courts/discuss/index.htm.
37
Topic: “Televised court hearings”
Author : William
Posted : 01 January 2005 at 16:42
I have worked within the Court Service for over 13 years and believe the public would be horrified to see how much time and money is wasted administering justice in their name.
Author : Anne Neill
Posted : 07 January 2005 at 11:34
I very much fear that in a culture of fly-on-wall documentaries, and general voyeurism within our society, televising court hearings will not be received as a valuable window on the justice system by the vast majority of the British public, but simply as a chance to snoop on a real life soap opera. I also fear 'You the Jury' polls springing up in the popular press, and all in all this idea seems to be a slippery slope to jury trial becoming trial by the general Sun reading public. It's a disastrous proposition.
Author : Morwenna Macro
Posted : 12 January 2005 at 12:30
As a Barrister, I am concerned that the broadcasting of court hearings could impact on those taking part. It may make the advocates more nervous with the cameras upon them and open them to publicity in the media which could have various negative impacts (a Barrister is subject to the cab rank rule and cannot pick and choose clients but could be criticised for representing a particular person, for example, or they could become "famous" and have their privacy invaded).
Further, witnesses may be more reluctant to come forward or become more nervous in the spotlight. This may impact on the court's ability to assess credibility -did they hesitate because they are lying or because they are nervous and the camera is on them? It must not be forgotten that sometimes witnesses may need to reveal private details.
Furthermore, who would control the editorial content of the broadcasts - it is sure to be highly edited, but this could easily distort the picture portrayed. Will comment on the evidence be controlled? Who will explain the process and can they do so in an
38
unbiased way? I recall the Louise Woodwood Trial in America and the focus on her smile - nervousness or malice? Can we ensure a fair trial?
Author : Michael
Posted : 31 January 2005 at 11:33
There are pros and cons for televising court cases.
William is of course right there is a vast amount of money being 'wasted'administering justice. One of the pros is that presumably some of the revenue
made by broadcasting will go to offset some of these costs.
Judges,and barristers, defendants and witnesses could have sponsorship deals
with Nike Reebok, and other big names. (tongue in cheek)
Seriously there would be some financial benefits to the legal system by having
broadcasting, presumably the TV companies would have to pay for the privilege.
Anne Neill of course has it right when she says that then it could be the subject of'you the jury' polls. Undoubtedly William Hill’s and other Bookmakers would be
looking at introducing various bets from the verdict to the length of deliberation to
how often the defendant uses a particular word.
Morwenna
The money barristers earn more than offsets any effect that broadcasting mighthave on your private lives. If you are nervous when speaking then really you are
not up to the job. After all you are there to represent the position of your client and
public speaking on their behalf is one of your key functions.
In relation to witnesses I agree, if a witness is seen to be poorly treated in court on
TV, this will create even more reluctance for witnesses to come forward for future
cases.
The editorial content would undoubtedly come down to the broadcaster, and this
may well cause problems as it currently does with the written media. I don't think
anyone in their right mind would agree that the press currently accurately and fairly
report what goes on in court.
39
Author : Lesley
Posted : 31 January 2005 at 15:04
I think that televising court hearings would result in public outrage at the inefficient way they run. Maybe this would put pressure on the Lord Chancellor’s Office to take a good look and revise the protocols so that time and money is not wasted.
Judge Judy style hearings make sense for most small claims
Topic: “Good theory - bad reality”
Author : Christopher Slade
Posted : 17 November 2004 at 15:33
The idea of opening Courts to the Media in this way seems a good way to enforce the Democratic idea. However, I do feel that to broadcast proceedings would put added pressure on the Court and could become a way for immediate (and often ill considered) judgments to be made by others. What happens when "private" legal discussion must occur, and would Jurors be happy to become widely known. Yes, the public should be allowed in to courts, but it seems this is a much more controlled way of allowing access.
Author : Alan Doherty
Posted : 19 November 2004 at 09:30
A big case beamed live into the homes of millions of people. Nice idea. Bit of a problem if you're a witness. Or a juror. Or, possibly an "undercover" police officer.
Widening the public's knowledge of the court system is fine. However, we have libraries, the internet, or if the public are really interested in what happens in court, why not just come along? The public gallery is just that. Public.
Do we really want to see a dozen barristers kicking their heels waiting their turn in a plea/sentence list? Or not waiting their turn perhaps.
Author : Samuel Williams
Posted : 01 January 2005 at 12:28
It amazes me that even our judiciary and court system which is seen as the best in the world especially the civil court system is now going to be a sheep instead of a
40
shepherd. If televising trials was such a sensible thing which would in some way result in better justice or better law we, I believe, would have introduced it years ago. The simple fact is that it threatens and trivialises the very purpose of the court. If hard cases make bad law, hard cases that are televised will make worse ones.
The judiciary and the Royal family have one thing in common: their ability to survive. That survival over hundreds of years was not by chance but by not involving itself in the trends of the day or year in which it finds itself. This does result in a stuffy image but the other result is that they are seen as institutions which are timeless, trendless and not swayed by political movements of the day. Now that sounds like the water, soil and sunshine of which justice can bear fruit. Also it will have the general confidence of the public.
Justice must be played out in a public forum but the glare of publicity must play a part that will not jeopardise Justice first and foremost.
I cannot see the problem with the system as we have it now. It displays the outcomes of the courts but not the trials. I suggest, that this is still the most preferred option. The interests of the television company is that it will have access to the ultimate reality TV. Trials televised for the purposes of training the bar is more than welcomed because it will further justice in a round-about way or as a training aid to other officers of the court but as for choice viewing on Friday night I'm not sure whose interest that will be.
Let us allow the Americans to turn their court system into the court-game show and watch as it dispenses actors and actresses and not justice worthy of a court of law.
We again should lead the legal world in holding back and showing restraint where impulses are running high on the wind of publicity avarice.
41
Conclusion and Next Steps
1. It is clear from the response to consultation that support for widespread broadcasting is limited, and that there is grave concern about the potential impact on participants, especially witnesses and jurors, and on the trial process. On the other hand, many respondents did feel that broadcasting could increase understanding of court processes and make courts more accessible.
2. In light of the responses, we are exploring whether there are options which might achieve these benefits, without risking harm to participants or any negative impact on the administration of justice.
3. Any proposals for change will be the subject of a further public consultation on the detail. In order to permit any broadcast of court proceedings, amendments would be required to primary legislation.
42
Consultation Co-ordinator contact details
If you have any complaints or comments about the consultation process rather than about the topic covered by this paper, you should contact the Department for Constitutional Affairs Consultation Co-ordinator, Laurence Fiddler, on 020 7210 2622 or email him at [email protected]
Alternatively, you may wish to write to the address below:
Laurence Fiddler
Consultation Co-ordinator
Department for Constitutional Affairs
5th Floor Selborne House
54-60 Victoria StreetLondon
SW1E 6QW
If your complaints or comments refer to the topic covered by this paper rather than the consultation process, please direct them to the contact given on page 3.
43
The Consultation Criteria
The six consultation criteria are as follows:
1. Consult widely throughout the process, allowing a minimum of 12 weeks for written consultation at least once during the development of the policy.
2. Be clear about what your proposals are, who may be affected, what questions are being asked and the timescale for responses.
3. Ensure that your consultation is clear, concise and widely accessible.
4. Give feedback regarding the responses received and how the consultation process influenced the policy.
5. Monitor your department’s effectiveness at consultation, including through the use of a designated consultation co-ordinator.
6. Ensure your consultation follows better regulation best practice, including carrying out a Regulatory Impact Assessment if appropriate.
These criteria must be reproduced within all consultation documents.
44
Annex A – List of Respondents
Total responses - 259
Individual
Organisation
Location: England
Northern Ireland
Scotland Wales
Other
Individuals:Non court users:Court users:
Juror
Witness
Expert witness
DefendantClaimant (formerly plaintiff)Police officer
Judiciary: Lord of AppealLord Justice of Appeal or High Court Judge (or Deputy)Circuit Judge (or Deputy)Judge Advocate
District Judge (or Deputy) (including DJ (MC))RecorderTribunal chair or panel memberLay magistrate
Coroner
201
58
220 10 10 9 10
68 37 7
12 4 4 8 2 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 2 2
45
Lawyers: 48 Barrister 14 Solicitor 27 Solicitor Advocate 4 ILEX Member 3 ILEX Advocate 0
Court staff: 7
Justices’ Clerk 0
Court Clerk 4
Court Usher 2
Other member of Court staff 1
Other: 33
Organisations: Representing the judiciary 3 Representing the legal profession 15 Government department or agency 10 Police, National Probation Service or Prison Service 6 Representing consumers 0 Voluntary or Community organisations 11 Trade union 0 Representing broadcasting and media organisations 9 Other 4
46
Organisations responding:
(Organisations which marked their responses confidential are not listed here)
� Association of Chief Police Officers
� Association of District Judges
� Association of Women Barristers
� Association of Women Solicitors
� Attorney General's Office
� Bar Council� British Institute of Verbatim Reporters
� Channel 4
� Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd
� Chrysalis Radio
� City of London Law Society
� Clifford Chance LLP
� Confederation of British Industry (CBI)� Coroners' Officers' Association
� Coroners' Society of England and Wales
� Council on Tribunals
� Crown Prosecution Service
� Dennis Woolf Productions
� Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (NI)� Equal Parenting Council (EPC)� Herbert Smith
� Institute of Ideas
� Irish in Britain Representation Group (IBRG)� ITN
� Judges' Council� Justice
� Justices' Clerks' Society
� Ledgister's Solicitors
� Legal Connect� Liverpool Law Society
� London Criminal Courts Solicitors' Association
47
� London Solicitors Litigation Association
� Lovells
� Medical Protection Society
� Ministry of Defence
� Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO)� Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People
� Personal Support Unit, Royal Courts of Justice
� Police Federation of England and Wales
� Police Federation of Northern Ireland
� Police Service of Northern Ireland
� Police Superintendent's Association of England and Wales
� Rights of Women
� Society of Editors
� Solicitor Sole Practitioners Group
� Technology and Construction Bar (TECBAR)� The Academy of Experts
� The Cheltenham Group
� The Newspaper Society
� Victim Support� Women's Land Reform Group
48
© Crown copyrightProduced by DCA Corporate Communications
June 2005 DCA CP(R) 28/04