2013-05-19T15:00:25-04:00 Simon Bucks http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=simon-bucks Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Simon Bucks Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1434406 2012-04-18T19:00:00-04:00 2012-06-18T05:12:02-04:00

Simon Bucks http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-bucks/
In the High Court in Edinburgh, Judge Lord Bracadale was recorded, passing sentence on a convicted murderer David Gilroy, who killed his former lover. Scotland has allowed TV cameras in court rooms since 1992 but under such draconian restrictions that until now the facility has only been used by documentary makers.

The Scottish judiciary's decision to allow sentencing remarks to be broadcast soon after the event, as part of contemporaneous news coverage, is a significant advance. The court spokeswoman who explained the decision could have taken her script from the campaigning blogs and articles I and other UK broadcasters have been writing for years. She said:
"We try to be as open and accessible as possible and explain the justice system to the public. This is another opportunity for us to allow the public to see what goes on in court. People can't get in court every day to see what happens and justice should be seen to be done and this is an opportunity for the public to see an accused being sentenced."

Precisely. It is gratifying that the arguments we have been employing all these years are now being used by the judiciary.

Since the British government is about to announce a relaxation of the prohibition on televising courts in England and Wales, this development is welcome. The Scottish courts have set the pace; perhaps it will encourage the English judiciary to go further than its initial proposal to only allow the televising of legal argument and judgments in the Appeal Court. If that goes well, they say, they might consider allowing cameras to record criminal trial sentencing.

Meanwhile six hundred miles away, across the North Sea, the terrifying and shocking killing spree committed by Anders Behring Breivik is being rehearsed before TV cameras in an Oslo court. For Norway, the television coverage of this trial is clearly part of a national catharsis. Norwegians need to understand why Breivik did what he did.

What is interesting is the openness of the process while giving the judges the final say on what is and isn't televised. As a liberal democracy, Norway believes in open justice, but not at all costs; they banned the cameras from recording Breivik's own statement rather than allow him a platform for his extreme views. The premise that the judge remains master or mistress of the court and has the final say in what can be broadcast has been central to the broadcasters' arguments all along and should reassure any doubters who fear the courts will become a broadcast studio with TV directors in charge.

The Norwegians and the Scots have demonstrated it is possible to televise courtrooms without jeopardising the judicial process. Let's hope it convinces the few remaining opponents of allowing camera into the English and Welsh courts.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1387955 2012-03-29T19:00:00-04:00 2012-05-29T05:12:01-04:00

Simon Bucks http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-bucks/
It appears the Coalition government will announce in May that it intends to overturn the law banning any photography, let alone video, of a court case. It's the result of a campaign by Sky News and the other broadcasters dating back 10 years to effectively open up the public gallery to everyone.

Our argument, put simply, is that every citizen has the right to sit in a court, to view and hear the proceedings but few do because they don't have the opportunity. If you have a day job, or just don't happen to live nearby, it is impractical. The law banning cameras in court was passed in 1925 and was never targeted at television (Britain didn't even have a TV service then). In fact it seems that the main reason for the original law was to clear out photographers with exploding magnesium flash guns. The law is outdated.

Today most people get their information either from TV or the internet in all its forms, where video is rapidly becoming as important as text and pictures. Opponents of televising courts invariably suggest that broadcasters want to turn trials into Judge Judy style entertainment. It is time to nail this disinformation.

Initially we will only be allowed to show legal argument and judgments in the Court of Appeal; no defendants or witnesses. The existing rules governing court reporting (which in Britain are very strict) will also apply: so even if there were juries in the appeal courts, we could not identify them. Down the road, it is probable we will be able to video the sentencing remarks by judges in Crown Court criminal trials. But so far, that is all that is being discussed.

Why has the government decided to overturn a 97-year-old law, when successive previous governments resisted? Chiefly because it has a "transparency agenda" to open up the workings of the system to public scrutiny. The courts are a cornerstone of democracy, and the right of everyone to see justice being done fairly is, in my view, an integral part of that proposition. It's a small start.

Although the Court of Appeal frequently decides important cases of significant public interest, some will doubtless argue that watching lawyers and judges making arcane arguments will make drying paint looks positively dramatic. That's not the point. Our ambition is simply to be able to report more effectively, by showing the protagonists speaking, in their own voices, rather than reporting them second hand.

Finally, it seems, Britain is catching up with most other civilised countries which, to a greater or lesser extent, allow their citizens access to the judicial system through TV. ]]>