Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done

Court reporters are usually huddled in the press box, with their notebooks in hand and 100wpm shorthand under their belt, but now with the exception of certain cases, they can rely on one video-journalist to capture the proceedings live from inside the courtroom. 

Since 1925, cameras have been banned in courtrooms in England and Wales, and journalists have lived by their mantra of being ‘the eyes and ears for the public’. This ban was lifted at the end of last year when cameras were installed at the Court of Appeal meaning access would no longer stop at the door.

The courtroom has always been a rich source of stories for journalists. The gripping and gruesome quotes in the judges’ summing up - captivates readers, leaving them hooked and astonished by some of the most horrendous acts committed by humans. However, some may find that they do not have the time to grab the daily newspaper and that watching a visually powerful image, on the go, is far more engaging, accessible and efficient.

Anyone interested in the legal system can choose to switch on and follow the chosen televised case. The idea here is that justice will not only be done, but will also be seen to be done, targeting a larger audience by providing transparency and open access to justice for all. We should consider that this may come at a cost for the reputation of journalists, as the public may lose trust in editors who risk sensationalising content that may be perceived as entertainment rather than for the purpose of reporting news. Particularly if the defendant has previously been in the media spotlight, it may feel as though journalists are glorifying their trial as it’s aired or splashed across front pages. 

The principle of televising proceedings will be applauded by many in the legal profession, with the general thought that it was long overdue. Although many may gain an educational insight in watching it, it is easy to fall into the trap of watching for the sheer pleasure of seeing the most recently publically ‘hated’ figure, ridiculed in the hot seat. However, doesn’t this tarnish the philosophy that justice should be a serious matter?

What’s to say that people won’t play up to the cameras? 

We have to consider the behaviour of the judges and the lawyers here. They know they are being watched. Take for instance the current case of Oscar Pistorius in South Africa. He is a public figure that has been in the media for over a year now since it was reported that he shot his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine’s Day 2013. Although we cannot see Pistorius when he is in the witness dock, we can hear all of his answers and emotional sobs. This really dramatises the case, bringing the trial to life, as viewers are hooked as it unfolds by the day.

We have seen the prosecutor laugh in response to Pistorius’ answer, and the judge demand for the public gallery to stop their careless whispers, and to reiterate that this is not an entertaining matter. It can be argued that a high profile case such as this, with a vast amount of public attention on their every move, heightens the tension and pressure for those involved. We cannot ignore the fear and anguish that the defendant may feel, and more importantly the victims who may be put off the idea of coming forward. After all anyone can tune in and watch their personal and private ‘business’. This is potentially fatal, leading to a new generation of silent victims who have been deterred from coming forward.

Taking these new advances into factor, rumour has it that television companies don’t want it to stop there. We may be able to hear them, but what they really want is to be able to see the ‘celebrity’ figure in the dock framed for shameful charges. They may argue that it would make good TV, but it could be deemed to be a mockery to the criminal justice system.

Going to court is not on an average person’s daily agenda, but many more are likely to turn on the TV in the comfort of their own home. When people watch the news they are usually faced with a journalist speaking outside the usual bland court building, with the occasional glance to their notebooks in hand. Often when producing a video report it lacks visuals, with merely a mug shot, or the rushes of the accused walking in and out of the court. With the luxury of gaining access in to the courts, we can avoid the robotic and structured reports that usually involve a verbal reel of facts. Crime and the courts may not be everyone’s cup of tea, and therefore those without an interest will find listening to legal argument and court jargon pretty dull, repetitive and dreary. 

With the murder trial of Pistorius, we have seen him in the dock for days on end for hours at a time. Broadcasters, in particular Sky News, produce a special programme to repeatedly play the highlights of the day.

Social media has also played a significant role in reaching a larger audience, with journalists tweeting live from inside the courtroom. This live feed recaps what is being heard in court. 

Other features include subtitles on the screen when the defendant’s mutterings are not audible, and as a viewer we can see photographs and exhibits, within reason, when the legal teams refer to them.

Reporting on criminal proceedings demonstrates responsible journalism as it requires ethical judgement and a strong knowledge of what is safe to report when trespassing on legal ground. Audience trust is vitally important, and the reputation of a court reporter boils down to whether it is legally sound, abiding by the law of contempt of court.

Proceedings in the country’s highest court in the UK, The Supreme Court were already streamed Live on the internet, but now with access into the Court of Appeal the next step is awaiting the approval for the Government to consider filming inside the Crown Court.

This has been a landmark moment for Justice and Journalism, but it raises the question of whether it will end here, or if broadcasters will demand to see more.