Cameras Allowed in Courts
Legal and broadcasting history will be made later when cameras are allowed to film inside the Royal Courts of Justice for the first time.
Permission has been granted to show civil and criminal cases at the Court of Appeal, although there are heavy restrictions on what can be filmed.
Cameras have been banned from courts in England and Wales since 1925.
The rules in Scottish courts are different and earlier this year cameras were allowed to film a murder trial - but only with the permission of all the participants, including the defendant.
Sky News and other broadcasters have been campaigning for a decade for cameras to be allowed to show all trials.
http://news.sky.com/story/1161631/cameras-to-film-appeal-court-after-campaign
______________________
People won't see what you watch on films. So don't get over excited.
0
Comments
but i am still not happy about the direction.
i would hate for our system to become anything like america's. terrifying.
I'm guessing they're wanting to copy Judge Judy and others that are similar.
Yeah. America's justice system does seem very harsh at times, and doesn't seem to offer leniency when it's needed. This is from what I've read.
there are several problems with the american justice system.
one of which is the plea bargaining system. in this country we offer discounts to encourage people to plead guilty but they are relatively small compared to america. something like 10 - 30% off a custodial sentence depending on where in the process you plead guilty.
in america the difference is massive. you have literally got people being faced with the possibility of trial for attempted murder life in prison or pleading guilty to a relatively minor assault charge. the discrepancy in the sentences means innocent or guilty you are likely to take the plea. meaning guilty people go free and innocent people get punished. particularly in the context of 3 strikes.
but all of this is at the discretion of the prosecutors. and because of the tv cameras in the event of high profile cases there is less likely to be a plea offered because the prosecutors want to be on the TV and make a name for themselves.
Does the accused have to consent to this, or is Sky's right to broadcast it for ratings and profit a more important consideration?
I know its only the Court of appeal, but Scottish murder cases have been broadcast with the consent of the accused, witnesses, I believe and apparently the television companies just see this as a first step to American style televised trails.
i think there are protections in place at the moment. but this is only going one way.
it's so problematic. supposing a witness does not want to be on tv. do they not broadcast the whole trial, potentially leading to that witness not being called because other people do want for one reason or another it to be on tv.
or do they not show that bit meaning that the tv audience and the jury may be getting different evidence.
what do you propose?
More coverage than just courts of appeal.
can you see any downsides?
99% of all court hearings are open to the public.
It won't be very good TV unless the judges are young and pretty?
Sure, we'd all like to ogle at the TV perhaps, but when one thinks a little deeper about it one begins to question. The fact that SKY clearly wish to get their grubby hands all over it speaks volumes.
But how easily accessible? Using TV camera feeds enable people to view proceedings in their own time and wherever they are.
You go up to the door and if there is room in public gallery they let you in. Done it myself at the High Court and the Bailey more than once.
And given the courts from magistrates through to supreme sitting every day all over the country do you seriously imagine they could cover them all?
And if you start to pick and chose say the Bailey you''ll have the Scots complaining they want their court covered and people in Lancashire moaning they want a local murder being tried at Preston etc etc.
The number of feeds to cover every court would run to hundreds.
Of course it was.:rolleyes:
They facts are that Sky did not take up the first case and televise it because it involved a paedophile so they waited and went for the next case. If the first case had been relatively mundane would have been shown instead.
Not that it matter very much anyway, hundreds of people have already seen Allan Alexander Cameron practising as a barrister in open court.
From my own perspective back in 1993 I was a witness in a criminal trial...a guy was up for nicking stuff from a Student Halls of residence...I had`t seen him do anything but I had noticed at time X a rug was in place next to a telephone kiosk...and that was it...but I was required to testify in order to clarify a time line...Well fook me I was ripped to shreds in court by the defence team..well that`s how it felt...It`s bad enough having to go through that in Court...but the thought of being made to look like a liar on national TV would seriously make me think twice about making any witness statement to the Police in the future
Courts are not for entertainment purposes. If someone is interested enough, they can go along to their local one, and watch proceedings.
Most of what happens is quite boring.