Television may screen finale of major trials
by STEVE DOUGHTY, Daily Mail
3rd December 2005
Television may be allowed to show the conclusion to trials of murderers, terrorists and other serious criminals, it was suggested yesterday.
Once a defendant has been found guilty, the cameras may be able to film the judge passing sentence.
Legal arguments and high-profile criminal appeals may also be screened, but the risk of the verdict being affected means that the actual trial in front of the jury is unlikely to be covered.
The prospect of a revolutionary break with the 80-year-old bar on cameras was raised by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Kenneth Macdonald QC said witnesses and juries would be protected by allowing in cameras when a criminal is sentenced, after all the evidence has been heard and their guilt has been decided.
He told a legal conference: 'I have no objection to Court of Appeal cases being filmed, or judges delivering sentences or lawyers presenting argument.
'I think it is something we could look at and these sort of things are a possibility.'
Last year, Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer dismissed the idea of broadcasting criminal trials, citing 'powerful reasons and arguments for protecting victims, witnesses, jurors and the justice process in general'.
The suggestion by Mr Macdonald, who is head of the Crown Prosecution Service, could result in some highly dramatic scenes being shown on television.
Sentencing in major trials and criminal appeals, which are heard by senior judges without juries, have the potential for pulling in large audiences. Legal argument in the absence of the jury would be allowed to be shown only after a verdict.
An experiment to film in the Appeal Court is already under way, but so far no broadcasts have been permitted.
A ban on cameras was introduced in 1925, partly prompted by a picture taken of an Old Bailey judge wearing the black cap while passing a death sentence. The act of taking the photograph was described in the Commons as 'dreadful'.
Any rule changes would require full parliamentary legislation.
In the U.S., 38 of the 50 states allow TV cameras into their criminal and civil courts, providing that the judge agrees.
The American cable channel Court TV constantly shows cases live, although some critics argue that cameras can intimidate witnesses and encourage others to put on a theatrical performance.
In 1995, the controversial 'not guilty' verdict at the O.J. Simpson murder trial was widely attributed to courtroom coverage and the antics of Simpson's lawyers. The latest trend by judges is to permit cameras during the opening and closing statements and for the verdict, but not during the trial.
Cameras were banned from the most high-profile case of all earlier this year, when Michael Jackson faced child molestation charges in California. Watching court cases on TV has already proved popular in the UK. In 1997, millions followed the trial of British nanny Louise Woodward, who was convicted in the U.S. of killing a baby. She said later it was 'ridiculous' that she had become a minor celebrity.
A spokesman for Lord Falconer's Department for Constitutional Affairs said yesterday that a paper on television and the courts is likely to be out this month.
She added: 'We do not yet have a decision about whether there will or will not be filming, or limited filming.'
thetimesonline.co.uk
by STEVE DOUGHTY, Daily Mail
3rd December 2005
Television may be allowed to show the conclusion to trials of murderers, terrorists and other serious criminals, it was suggested yesterday.
Once a defendant has been found guilty, the cameras may be able to film the judge passing sentence.
Legal arguments and high-profile criminal appeals may also be screened, but the risk of the verdict being affected means that the actual trial in front of the jury is unlikely to be covered.
The prospect of a revolutionary break with the 80-year-old bar on cameras was raised by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Kenneth Macdonald QC said witnesses and juries would be protected by allowing in cameras when a criminal is sentenced, after all the evidence has been heard and their guilt has been decided.
He told a legal conference: 'I have no objection to Court of Appeal cases being filmed, or judges delivering sentences or lawyers presenting argument.
'I think it is something we could look at and these sort of things are a possibility.'
Last year, Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer dismissed the idea of broadcasting criminal trials, citing 'powerful reasons and arguments for protecting victims, witnesses, jurors and the justice process in general'.
The suggestion by Mr Macdonald, who is head of the Crown Prosecution Service, could result in some highly dramatic scenes being shown on television.
Sentencing in major trials and criminal appeals, which are heard by senior judges without juries, have the potential for pulling in large audiences. Legal argument in the absence of the jury would be allowed to be shown only after a verdict.
An experiment to film in the Appeal Court is already under way, but so far no broadcasts have been permitted.
A ban on cameras was introduced in 1925, partly prompted by a picture taken of an Old Bailey judge wearing the black cap while passing a death sentence. The act of taking the photograph was described in the Commons as 'dreadful'.
Any rule changes would require full parliamentary legislation.
In the U.S., 38 of the 50 states allow TV cameras into their criminal and civil courts, providing that the judge agrees.
The American cable channel Court TV constantly shows cases live, although some critics argue that cameras can intimidate witnesses and encourage others to put on a theatrical performance.
In 1995, the controversial 'not guilty' verdict at the O.J. Simpson murder trial was widely attributed to courtroom coverage and the antics of Simpson's lawyers. The latest trend by judges is to permit cameras during the opening and closing statements and for the verdict, but not during the trial.
Cameras were banned from the most high-profile case of all earlier this year, when Michael Jackson faced child molestation charges in California. Watching court cases on TV has already proved popular in the UK. In 1997, millions followed the trial of British nanny Louise Woodward, who was convicted in the U.S. of killing a baby. She said later it was 'ridiculous' that she had become a minor celebrity.
A spokesman for Lord Falconer's Department for Constitutional Affairs said yesterday that a paper on television and the courts is likely to be out this month.
She added: 'We do not yet have a decision about whether there will or will not be filming, or limited filming.'
thetimesonline.co.uk