Televised sentencing in English courts 'considered'

 
Inside court one at the Old Bailey The top civil judge in the country has said filming should be allowed in courts such as the Old Bailey

Related Stories

The government is considering whether to allow some sentencing in English and Welsh courts to be televised.

A government spokesman said it was considering proposals to allow limited recording and transmission from courts.

Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke said televising judges' comments was a good idea which would help demystify the legal process.

Critics have said prisoners could be at risk if personal information and previous convictions were revealed.

Under the proposals, the trials themselves and the verdicts delivered by the jury would not be filmed.

BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said sources at both Downing Street and the Ministry of Justice had confirmed the government was "seriously considering" the plans in the interests of greater transparency.

He said an announcement would be made in due course however sources had denied reports that the announcement would be made by the prime minister in a forthcoming speech on crime.

Mr Clarke said said there was "no good reason" why televising courts could not happen.

But he added that he favoured proceeding cautiously, starting with the Court of Appeal and including the Crown Courts later.

He said: "I think what we need is public information, public confidence and above all transparency in the way the system works.

Start Quote

There are all sorts of dangers which have to be carefully examined and a balance obtained, and that balance is not an easy one because all you're concentrating on is the judge”

End Quote Julian Young Solicitor advocate

"There's a lot of misunderstanding on how the criminal justice system works. What we don't want is theatre and we don't want to alter the behaviour or the conduct of the trial. We want to encourage people to have confidence in it.

"But, I can see no good reason why we shouldn't have television cameras allowed to record and give to the public the remarks of the judge."

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said the Lord Chancellor was consulting with senior judges on the proposals after renewed calls from broadcasters for filming to be allowed.

'Very cruel'

BBC News legal correspondent Clive Coleman said the director of public prosecutions, many judges and some lawyers were cautiously enthusiastic; however, some had argued that not seeing the trials themselves would hamper viewers' understanding of sentencing.

Shadow Justice Secretary Sadiq Khan said: "I believe that public understanding of and confidence in our legal system would improve if judges' verdicts were televised.

"However, it will be extremely important to ensure that careful controls are in place to protect jurors, victims and witnesses, particularly in complex and high-profile cases."

In March, the top civil judge in England and Wales suggested televising hearings to increase confidence in justice.

Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger said broadcasting some cases could boost public engagement in the court process.

Filming ban

But Julian Young, a solicitor advocate - a solicitor qualified to represent clients in the higher courts - said prisoners could be put at risk if all the judge's remarks, including personal information and previous convictions, were televised.

"The general prison population can be very cruel towards other prisoners they may see as being weak," he said.

TELEVISED COURTS

  • Scotland: Some court cases are televised; they included proceedings involving Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
  • United States: Some courts allow the use of camera equipment, but not federal or supreme courts.
  • South Africa: Trials involving government officials are televised
  • International Criminal Court in The Hague: Proceedings involving alleged war criminals are broadcast

Mr Young said there could be difficulties in that the public would not be hearing what the prosecutor or defence lawyer had said.

He told BBC News that problems could arise if, for example, "the public gallery decided to erupt" half way through the judge's speech or if people misbehaved in court in order to gain publicity.

"There are all sorts of dangers which have to be carefully examined and a balance obtained, and that balance is not an easy one because all you're concentrating on is the judge," he added.

Filming in English courts has been banned since 1925. Cameras have been allowed in Scotland's courts since 1992 but only if all parties involved have given their consent.

Acquittal concerns

This is not the first time such plans have been considered. In 2000 there were reports that a committee headed by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, was looking at something similar. But the then government denied this was the case.

Peter Lodder QC, chairman of the Bar Council, told the Today programme that there has been "mounting pressure for what is described as transparency, but which is really simply a wider communication of the way courts operate.

"And I don't think in the vast majority of cases, and with some care, that that's necessarily a bad thing."

But Charles Harris, last year's president of the Council of Circuit Judges, also told Today: "A trial is actually an entity of various parts, and you can't legitimately split it up into bits and pieces.

"What about a defendant who doesn't agree to [filming], is sentenced in the full light of publicity and then appeals and is acquitted?"

 

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 74.

    Anything which humiliates criminals is fine by me.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 73.

    In this day of smartphones & internet how would impartiality of the jury and privacy of witnesses be managed. Maybe if it wasnt live and faces blurred then it would be more acceptable

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 72.

    In light of the wrongful arrest of the nurse, where she is considering suing for defamation, I think it is wholly unjust and unwise to make television ratings out of potentially innocent people who have no option but to be there.

    This will ruin lives unnecessarily.

    I would hope our government would take our justice system more seriously than this.

  • rate this
    +6

    Comment number 71.

    This is a bad idea. The public gallery should be quite a sufficient degree of transparency. When trials are televised, there is a real danger of courts becoming political, as justice must always 'be seen to be done'. It would be an infringement of defendants' rights, who are innocent until proven guilty and many of whom are fundamentally innocent but risk public humiliation and stigmatisation.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 70.

    #66. sandy winder
    .
    Your mention of, and comparison with televising parliament will not wash.
    I was one of those who had, in your own words, "pathetic objections" to the televising of parliament. Have you seen & heard them!
    Prima Donnas out to score points, I've seen and heard better behaved school children - on occasions. They do nothing for our reputation, & liitle enough for us. Serious debate!

  • rate this
    +6

    Comment number 69.

    Why?

    If it only covers sentencing, it risks misunderstanding of the whole case. If it covers the whole trial, what happens in cases where a defendant is acquitted? What about cases where police evidence is attacked by the defense counsel, but then proven to be accurate?

    If people want to see what happens in court, they can sit in the public gallery.

    This is populist nonsense.

  • rate this
    +6

    Comment number 68.

    Who will be the audience? Many offenders will glory in knowing that people will be watching them and play to the camera. So will judges, barristers as it is free advertising for them. Another reality show. What a waste of money that we have not got. It will be better spend on proper policing stopping offenders getting into court in the first place.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 67.

    Daft idea. But more importantly what has happened to Ken Clarke? He used to be one of the best politicians in Westminster and now, as he kowtows to the prime minister, a lesser man in every way, he allows himself to be made to look more and more ridiculous. It seems to happen every time the tories have an idea about or open their mouthes on law and order. Get a grip, Ken.

  • rate this
    -12

    Comment number 66.

    The only people who could object to this are people who don't want justice to be seen to be done. We had the same pathetic objections to televising of parliament. We have a RIGHT to see what happens in our courts on our behalf.

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 65.

    Just another way to generate money? I think so.

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 64.

    What a silly idea!

    A defendant is not a convicted criminal, so why should he/she agree to a filmed trial? Even if found guilty there may be an appeal - an appeal which may well succeed. The innocent should be spared having their faces displayed over the nation's TV screens, and if that means that the voyeurs out there miss their little treats - tough!!!

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 63.

    Fortunately I've only been in court as a witness and a victim. It is already difficult enough to attend a court (since government's idea of 'local' means a huge fuel bill coupled with difficult/expensive/non-existent parking), but the thought of being filmed would put me off entirely. I don't want to be on TV.

  • rate this
    -2

    Comment number 62.

    43.
    yorkshire voice
    48 Minutes ago

    Having recently returned from Florida and seen how it works there I think it would be a terrible idea . . . .
    Our system may be dull but it works.

    "It works". Hmm, yes, it "works" - but often it "works" badly, as many court cases have established, the recent case involving Mrs. Blair being one example. There are plenty more examples: space here does not permit.

  • rate this
    -2

    Comment number 61.

    #50. DoestheBBCactuallytakeanynotice.
    .
    Having regards to your log-in name - NO.
    As for the rest of your post, even though you might be lucky enough to be still working (I had to retire due to very long-term, multi-system illness), you could be called-up for jury service, you might have to attend as a witness, or to support a friend or family member. I last attended while training for my last job.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 60.

    "Look Mum, I,m on the tele" If ASBO's were worn like a badge, how long will it be before some moron decides that to get his 5 minutes of fame he must commit murder so that he ends up on court TV. The only case in the past that was broadcast daily on British TV was the O J Simpson case. which made a defunct sports star and actor (and murderer) a worldwide celebrity. Will Ant & Dec be the hosts.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 59.

    Why? What possible benefit could this bring to society?

  • rate this
    -6

    Comment number 58.

    For a cheaper, faster, accurate record of not only words, but gestures, face to face reactions, the demeanor of the judges and all others, in this day and age of high technology and a fast review, sooner this transition is carried out the better, just and most appropriate. The only judges or others against its are those that have something to hide or their biases and prejudices.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 57.

    This is a ghoulish proposal. -and what kind of people are going to sit and watch court sentencing,I wonder? Who watches tv during the day?With their 6 pack of stella and dole-purchased fags?Let me think. This ridiculous idea should be dumped immediately.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 56.

    I would prefer that there was greater transparency in the family courts. They're far too closed & the miscarriages of justice that happen in them would make your toes curl, only you don't get to hear about them because to reveal details is to risk gaol time. Millions of YOUR tax is being spent to prop up social services backside covering.

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 55.

    I can't think of a single reason why this is a good idea but can see plenty why its bad.We'll be pandering to the tabloidesque end of TV where even so called reality shows are so far removed from reality they depict more fiction/fantasy worlds.We really don't need the courts system going down that road.Stick to what we know works,report cases as and when but leave TV out of the courtroom.

 

Page 3 of 6

 

More UK stories

RSS

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.