Cameras in Courtrooms

There is a clear tension between the democratic right of the people at large to watch a trial, and the liberty of the defendant in any given case. It is a fundamental precept of many legal systems that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. By showing the defendant on television, the general public will be able to reach conclusions about guilt or innocence that may not be reflected in the final verdict of the jury. People will tend to assume that ‘there’s no smoke without fire’ – although this principle cannot properly be applied to the criminal justice system. Although the identity of alleged victims of certain crimes are protected by law, the judge in a criminal trial rarely orders that the defendant should remain anonymous. In fact, it would be unlikely that the trial of a defendant whose identity was protected would be televised, as much of the audience and human interest is derived from the behaviour of this central character in the courtroom. By enlarging the constitutional right of access we will be pre-judging the defendant. He will be exposed to public reaction that might be wholly unjustified if he is subsequently acquitted. Even if he is found not guilty, the publicity he has already suffered may ruin his chances of future employment or anonymity. This would be contrary to the principle of rehabilitation that is at the core of penal policy. In short the rights of the defendant should be placed ahead of the supposed rights of the general population to see trials on television.The real motivation, in any case, behind televising trials is no the pursuit of some noble democratic right, but simply the pursuit of drama and titillation. ‘Court TV’ in the United States features tabloid-style and sensationalist programming. Its audience seeks entertainment rather than education. Fictional dramas, including those set in court, already provide such entertainment. We should not jeopardise individual liberty in the pursuit of a real-life courtroom thriller.

Courts do have some role in developing the law. However, the courts which do so tend to be the courts of appeal, and the supreme courts, or in the case of Britain, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. It would be extremely unlikely that a television channel would seek to cover these hearings, as they consist of dry legal argument, and feature none of the witnesses, the cross-examination or the emotive speeches to the jury that we would associate with courtroom drama. These are proceedings for lawyers, carried out by lawyers. Few members of the audience would have the understanding or the inclination to watch such programs. Likewise, watching the application of law is not particularly enriching. Whilst we can understand the important principles of any new law, the actual details, which may be argued in court, are of primary interest to lawyers. Written reports of every case already provide lawyers with this information.

The system of justice will actually be harmed by televising trials, for two reasons ; the effect upon the witnesses and victims of crime, and the possible corruption of the jury and witnesses.Firstly, the prospect that an alleged victim of a crime will have to give evidence in court already deters many from bringing prosecutions. Victims will be much less prepared to give evidence if they know that this painful experience is going to be seen by an audience of millions. Evidently, we will not have confidence in a system of justice which fails to bring the accused to trial.Secondly, a popular following of a trial will encourage witnesses and jurors to become involved in the media coverage. This interference may affect the reliability of the witness’ evidence or the jurors’ verdict. Following the televised trial of O. J. Simpson, several witnesses jurors gave interviews to the media, or wrote their memoirs of the case. In Britain it is unlawful to disclose the proceedings within the jury room or the jurors’ opinion on people involved in the case. Newspaper interviews with witnesses have already led to trials being abandoned. Cameras in court can only encourage witnesses and jurors to distort their true recollection or their opinions in order to profit from the media circus. Ultimately, payment of participants in the fact-finding process of a trial may lead to the wrong verdict being reached. Wrong verdicts will not inspire confidence in the criminal justice system.

The example of Court TV in America suggests that the sensationalist elements of the print media will pervade on television. In fact, television is likely to distort the representation of the truth to an even greater extent. As trials of heinous crimes typically continue for many days or even weeks, some measure of editorial discretion will be required in order to produce a brief and informative program. Whereas newspaper reports summarise the events of a whole day in court, the cameras can focus on a dramatic incident that is unrepresentative of the entirety of the proceedings. The most memorable event from the trial of O. J. Simpson was his inability to fit his hand into the glove found at the murder scene. However, much less prominence was given in the television coverage to the hours of scientific evidence that proved it was possible that the glove had shrunk.

Lawyers and the judiciary are already sufficiently accountable. Barristers are self-employed and the likelihood of continuing in work, and receiving a ‘repeat brief’, largely depends on the quality of their performance in court.Although the judiciary enjoys much greater security of tenure, their competence is constantly monitored by means of reports from the solicitors and barristers appearing before them. Therefore, nothing is to be gained by making the lawyers and judges ‘accountable’ to a mostly uneducated public through the medium of television. Moreover, television cameras actually harm the standard of debate. The coverage of debates in the House of Commons, and particularly ‘Prime Minister’s Questions’ has contributed towards ‘soundbite politics’. Depth of analysis and discussion is replaced by pithy comments that sound striking on news bulletins. During the course of a trial it is crucial that every issue is investigated as thoroughly as possible, in order to determine the defendant’s guilt or innocence. The search for the truth will not be assisted by encouraging the protagonists to rely on one-liners for the cameras.

Every moment of every crown court trial in Britain is already recorded and stored for the assistance of judges or lawyers involved in any potential appeal. In addition, a stenographer in the courtroom records every word for the benefit of the people involved in the trial. A video recording is unnecessary. Furthermore, the reason that appeal court judges rarely interfere with the verdicts of lower courts is not because they were not present themselves at the original trial. In the common law system, the jurors, and not judges, try the facts. It is for a jury to reach a decision on the facts, as presented by each witness. It is for the judge to advise and apply the relevant law. Using a video record in order to overturn jury verdicts would require a revolution in the criminal justice system. The jury would effectively have to be abolished.