Live, from a Crown Court near you...

[sphericalfox]

Who would have the time to sit through a whole trial?

There should be more options as to where the trap door leads.

I watched pretty much 5/6 hours of live and retrospective footage of the OJ Simpson case per day in the States. One I was studying law at the time (at a very low level I may add), and it was wall to wall coverage inside and outside. All these publicly televised trials provide is an outlet for a public to make their saturated minds up and make a retrial and/or appeal process near impossible to be fair and just. Though if you are interested in law, it's great entertainment, to see how conniving lawyers can be.

[Saxondale]

I'm on the fence here, I can see both sides of the argument.

All I know, from bitter experience, is that Crown Court hearings are 99.9% unbelievable tedium.

[Daggers]

Sadly, Joe Public doesn't want to know or understand the criminal justice system; it wants to point the finger of blame. I can't honestly see people agreeing with judges who have considered all of the facts, some of which are likely to be un-broadcastable, and fitted those into the Sentencing Guidelines. It's not an easy task, as there is 'no size fits all' sentence in the majority of situations.

Why can't people see the facts? Why aren't we privy to salient points like the man has previous for theft, ABH, GBH and rape like the last (guilty) bloke who rearranged my face and walked from court a free man?

And this, for me, isn't about whether people agree with judges or not - it's about education and openness, it's about access.

I want the Bailey to be televised, each case, beginning to end. It can be done simply and cheaply on a new public digital channel - no Sky, no Murdoch.

I want to see Judges explaining sentencing, I want to see lawyers interviewed and I firmly believe it would provoke debate and improve what we have.

For me, until then, everyone will continue to think legal process is carried out like the rape plot line in Coronation Street.

[Daggers]

Oh, and I'd like to see every single fùck up by the CPS televised so they get a firm kick up the arse.

[James.]

Completely agree with Dave here. And I find it kind of odd that Lisa is against it. So many times on here she has corrected wrong assumptions, clarified legal process, advised on technicalities - essentially educated us on the difference between the reality of a courtroom and what the media present. Surely having court cases shown from beginning to end (not just the summaries) would help educate those that wanted to know more and generally improve the transparency and people's awareness of the justice system.

[Daggers]

Leese could even be the expert commentator - like a legal Chris Kamara...

[goose2010]

I could watch this and then at least have a bit of an understanding of what my misses actually does all day! Usually I ask "you had a good day?" and I get the reply "yeah but I cant tell you anything about it"

[General Smuts]

Leese could even be the expert commentator - like a legal Chris Kamara...

But with a better moustache.

[Rincewind]

I'm not sure about showing the whole case. If there is a jury they are sometimes instructed to ignore a witnesses statement because either it is irrelevant or just hearsay, but could 3 million viewers ignore it. If the witness had had a past involvement with the law would it affect their job or family life?.

There could be a summing up of the case by the program makers, the content being approved by the defense prosecutor and judge before it is aired.. I still do not think that it would educate the ones unable to be uneducated. as regards to the lawThe Sun would have a field day with headlines like 'Judge cocks it up in rape case' and the readers would take it in.

[Daggers]

Usually I ask "you had a good day?" and I get the reply "yeah but I cant tell you anything about it"

Is that one of the conditions of the ASBO?

[Guest]

This has split lawyers. Some are against, and some are for it.

You won't get a trial televised in it's entirety; points arise that can't be discussed in front of a jury. I don't know if you've seen any of the recent news stories where jurors have been using the Internet to do their own research on cases. Imagine if they could go home, and see the points of law being discussed that they had to leave the courtroom for. The danger here could have a serious impact on running a fair trial. It would be easier to appeal convictions, like they do in the US, where there really is no basis for it. Seeing as most people are legally aidable, this would come at a cost to the taxpayer.

Matters are excluded for the reason of a fair trial. Previous convictions are only allowed to be admitted if they are relevant, so to show a propensity for the crime. As a prosecutor, you are trying to convict on the strength of the evidence before you, not on the basis that he or she has been a bit naughty in the past, so he or she must be guilty this time.

Other types of evidence can be excluded. This can involve running a trial within a trial, and is done without the jury present, so as not to prejudice the material if admitted, or to adversely influence the jury if not. This should not be televised.

Then there is the protection of defendants, witnesses, and the lawyers and judges. How is a defendant going to get the best defence barrister he can if lynch mobs are targeting those who are only doing a job, and acting on instructions? Why would you offer to be a witness when there's a risk you could be attacked in the street for it? We could see offences being under-reported.

As for sentencing, nobody hides previous convictions from the court or the public. Information in a pre-sentence report that isn't read out is usually sensitive information linked to medical and psychological issues. Just because someone has committed, maybe even admitted all along, a crime, should personal information be disclosed just like that? Even then, some defendants do want it disclosing, as it helps their case.

Are you also saying that references should be read out in open court? We all know that they say what a wonderful person Billy really is, and he wouldn't normally go round shooting grannies in the head.

Then there is not just the law, but the procedure itself. It's easier to follow what's going on most of the time, but when you consider how long it takes to train to do the basics, and the fact that barristers are learning throughout their career, it's not going to be easy educating the public. I appreciate that some of you do want to have things explained, and to be honest, I'm disappointed that most people do not, which is the crux of the matter. They don't want it explaining. They want to feel outraged, and do a lot of finger waggling.

There is, in my view, a huge potential to sensationalise crimes. Will we see attention seeking criminals? Or worse, lawyers and judges?

There is also a danger that judges will be under pressure to sentence on public opinion, and not applying the facts and the defendant's circumstances to the guidelines. This would lead to appeals, costing the taxpayer.

Even when sentenced appropriately, and with the Judge giving valid reasons, if the public doesn't like it, what then?

If such a service was provided, then done along the lines of the BBC Parliament channel would be the best way to go. But once the novelty has worn off, and people see that the criminal justice system is dull, it'll be niche TV, and I don't believe the risks are worth going with it. I personally believe that there needs to be better court reporting, but it doesn't need to be in the full glare of the media. Accurate reporting with explanations aren't that difficult, and some local media already do a good job of it. Follow @ChronCourt on twitter for how I think it should work.

Oh, and Smuts, leave my tache out of this >

[marko]

This leaves me cold.

Is it really about open justice? After all, the courts are open to members of the public.

Or is it cowing to the popular media, allowing them to report on those already in the public eye, or furthering sensationalistic stories on whatever area of crime they feel should be in the spotlight?

On the other hand, would seeing the reasoning behind sentences give you greater confidence in the system? Or would it confirm that the law is an ass?

Time to recycle this article...

I fail to see how this can be a bad thing.

I've lost count of the amount of times i've read criticism of judges' decision and sentencing. However, implementing these proposals ensures transparency. One of the things the strikes me as a real positive of these proposals is being able to hear a judge's sentencing remarks. The public will hear why a judge reached a decision on a particular punishment, we'll hear the pleas in mitigation that were taken into account, any previous misdemeanours of the defendant and other facts that were taken into account.

The recycled article is also irrelevant as is the title of the thread as the proposals are only for the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal to be televised; not courts of first instance. We're talking major criminal cases that inevitably invoke public interest - sadly, in many cases due to their heinous nature - not some sort of legally reality tv channel that allows us to watch some petty criminal. If, and it's a very big if, cameras were ever allowed in Crown Court, it'd be on a limited basis that allowed the public to see what and why a decision is made - not full blown proceedings with everything from evidence in chief to re-examination of every witness.

You also ask whether it will allow further sensationalisation of crimes. Again, I fail to see this. By providing the public with access to a judge's summing up, sentencing and skeleton arguments of both the prosecution and defence, it will ensure things cannot twisted and misreported as we'll get it straight from the horses mouth, so to speak.

You also state the courts are open to the public. Yes, I don't disagree, but in reality how many people can actually attend proceedings? Further, if everyone interested in a case did attend court, there simply wouldn't be enough room in the public gallery. Cameras in the court would solve this and let any member of the public see justice being delivered.

[Captain...]

I obviously bow to Lisa and her greater knowledge on this, but it all depends on how it is done, and reading the original article they are not planning to broadcast live and they only talk of the judges summing up and sentencing, whether that means that is all that will be recorded, or whether thst will be all that is available to the public.

Some of the points raised by Lisa surely apply to all public trials eg:

Then there is the protection of defendants, witnesses, and the lawyers and judges. How is a defendant going to get the best defence barrister he can if lynch mobs are targeting those who are only doing a job, and acting on instructions? Why would you offer to be a witness when there's a risk you could be attacked in the street for it? We could see offences being under-reported.

And where there is any sensitivity in the case and the identities of witnesses and personal information will not be recorded/broadcast.

This would have to be considered very carefully before implementation, as long as it doesn't jeopardise the impartiality of the court and protect the people and information that need to be protected then there is no harm in it.

I wouldn't expect any recordings to be released until after the trial has finished and I would hope that any recordings of a sensistive nature would be destroyed. I do think it is important to have an accurate and accessible recording of the outcome of trials, for the purposes of the News, for those that are looking for precedents to follow and for those that are studying the law or just want a greater understanding.

[marko]

I obviously bow to Lisa and her greater knowledge on this, but it all depends on how it is done, and reading the original article they are not planning to broadcast live and they only talk of the judges summing up and sentencing, whether that means that is all that will be recorded, or whether thst will be all that is available to the public.

Some of the points raised by Lisa surely apply to all public trials eg:

And where there is any sensitivity in the case and the identities of witnesses and personal information will not be recorded/broadcast.

This would have to be considered very carefully before implementation, as long as it doesn't jeopardise the impartiality of the court and protect the people and information that need to be protected then there is no harm in it.

I wouldn't expect any recordings to be released until after the trial has finished and I would hope that any recordings of a sensistive nature would be destroyed. I do think it is important to have an accurate and accessible recording of the outcome of trials, for the purposes of the News, for those that are looking for precedents to follow and for those that are studying the law or just want a greater understanding.

Some good points.

Under the proposals there would be zero need for protection of witnesses, lawyers, counsel, jury et al as they would not be broadcast. It would only be the judge who could have concerns over his image being shown nationwide, but as has been acknowledged, trials at crown court are public so any disgruntled associate of the defendant could easily attend court to identify him and 'do him over' should his mate be found guilty.

As I previously stated, I can only see transparent sentencing and summarising being a good thing for our criminal legal system, which let's be honest is much maligned for being soft, archaic and out of touch.

[Daggers]

This has to be the longest forum post I've ever bothered to read, cracking stuff Leese, thanks.

The danger here could have a serious impact on running a fair trial.

My personal experience of the judicial system has been that after two unprovoked assaults (the first by a drug-crazed moron and the second by a nightclub bouncer) leaving me requiring urgent medical attention, with witnesses - the system is an arse. Both times the men walked out of court due to the ineptitude of the CPS and the police. No one seemed to give a shit about finding the truth or seeing justice served.

The one time I have been prosecuted in court the police and prosecution council lied to such a level and went out of their way to attempt to distort my answers I was stunned. Again, justice was not served: I was innocent and yet lies and twisted truth perverted justice being done - again at the hands of those who we entrust to implement the law.

I've sat in Magistrates and Crown Court in my time too and been left with a similar feeling about the proceedings. I do accept that this is a very subjective viewpoint.

I just don't accept that the current system works, my experience is that the system simply isn't geared towards 'fair' and that shining a light onto it might introduce problems but it would also move it forward. Just my gut feeling on it. I suspect the legal system is against it in the same way that teachers oppose Ofsted, I've no evidence to support that conjecture though.

Will we see attention seeking criminals? Or worse, lawyers and judges?

Are you telling me they aren't already in the profession?

[Guest]

Marko - so-called transparency will not stop judges being criticised. As I've suggested further down in this thread, a judge could give his reasonings for a sentence in full, broadcast at a time to suit everyone, and people will still not agree with the outcome. As I also suggested, this could lead to judges being pressurised into sentencing according to public opinion, and not using the guidelines and case law available to assist. If my defendant was sentenced, that sentencing was broadcasted, and the judge went outside of the guidelines, I would be appealing that sentence on that basis. You, as a taxpayer, would be paying for me to go down to London to do this.

You mention that screenings would not be live. So how are you going to stop hearings from being edited to the "interesting points"? Sentencing hearings can take half an hour, they could take considerably longer. It's not going to overcome the issue of selective reporting. There are some court reporters who do the job better than others. I believe that getting accurate and informed reporting is more important than broadcasting the whole exercise, and if done properly, would be better understood.

The plan is to start with the higher appellate courts, then introduce it into the lower courts. In fact, proceedings in the Supreme Court are already broadcast, however nobody, apart from lawyers and those with more than a passing interest in the law, watch it. I never suggested the whole proceedings should be televised, neither does the blog post, if you read it properly.

As an aside, skellies are rarely used in criminal cases. They would be used in the appellate courts, but are you suggesting people would want to read them? Do we provide them with copies of the case law relied up on as well?

As for "talking major criminal cases that inevitably invoke public interest - sadly, in many cases due to their heinous nature - not some sort of legally reality tv channel that allows us to watch some petty criminal", this is the majority of what the Court of Appeal deal with, petty criminals appealing sentences or convictions! What's a "major criminal case" for the purposes of public interest is not a "major criminal case" for what interests the public. The public doesn't want a legal discussion on the admissibility of hearsay evidence, it wants something juicy. Therefore, there is little point in broadcasting, in my opinion, and it is just an opinion.

There's also the point that it's the sentencing "petty criminals" that angers the public the most. Or those who commit hyped up crimes. There are so many of them, how are you going to judge which one is worth reporting on?

You don't think it'll sensationalise proceedings? Seriously? It's nothing to do with "twisting" and "distorting", as you've interpreted it, it's about the reaction of the public and the media to crimes, and to those accused of them, and to those found guilty. You might not see it happening, but I'm cynical enough to believe there would be a media frenzy surrounding proceedings against, for example, a child murderer, more so than there is now.

We'll just have to disagree over the potential harm that could befall those involved. Seeing a judge sitting on a bench, and trying to recall what he looks like a week later will be easier once you've got the TV footage to remind yourself. I also don't believe that advocates, witnesses won't be televised at some point; especially witnesses, as a lot of their evidence is how they present it to the court, not just the words coming out, and if you're arguing someone wouldn't be in any more danger from a person sitting in the public gallery, then there's surely no more home if they're on tv too?

You ask how many people can attend proceedings - how many people are going to be around to watch court tv when it's happening, let alone how many are going to watch it instead of Corrie, Eastenders, Top Gear, etc.? People will only want to watch the "interesting cases", as in what interests the public, again. In the same way that the public gallery fills up when a hearing is of interest to them, it'll be the same with court proceedings broadcast on the TV. See? Hype, sensationalism?

You say the public can see "justice being delivered", but it won't stop people from thinking it's "soft, archaic and out of touch". You're presuming that people will be happy to accept what the judge has to say once they've heard it all. I disagree; I can see it clouding issues further, and causing more discontent and criticism of people trying to work within a system that is already challenging to work in.

[Guest]

Evil Tux - you should be prosecuted for your many name changes

In my experience, cock ups happen. If it's any consolation, I will be trying my damnedest to sort them out before it's too late, and from conversations I overhear, so does every other advocate; it's annoying being on the end of a judge's wrath when you've been badly instructed.

The system does need to change, but TV isn't going to sort it. It needs Parliament to introduce realistic guidelines to assist prosecutors and the courts. Like all publicly funded areas, it needs investing in to encourage and retain advocates of the highest standard. It needs investing to ensure that there is the manpower to enable prosecutions to be brought quickly and efficiently, without compromising on standards. The cuts to legal aid are going to see the system get worse, and given it's people's liberty at stake, that's a travesty.

Oh, and me? An attention seeker? As if!

[Daggers]

Evil Tux - you should be prosecuted for your many name changes

In my experience, cock ups happen. If it's any consolation, I will be trying my damnedest to sort them out before it's too late, and from conversations I overhear, so does every other advocate; it's annoying being on the end of a judge's wrath when you've been badly instructed.

The system does need to change, but TV isn't going to sort it. It needs Parliament to introduce realistic guidelines to assist prosecutors and the courts. Like all publicly funded areas, it needs investing in to encourage and retain advocates of the highest standard. It needs investing to ensure that there is the manpower to enable prosecutions to be brought quickly and efficiently, without compromising on standards. The cuts to legal aid are going to see the system get worse, and given it's people's liberty at stake, that's a travesty.

Oh, and me? An attention seeker? As if!

I've reached the requisite number of posts whereby I can do it myself once a month.

I don't see why it takes so long to qualify either - I've watched two series of Garrow's Law and feel totally fit to practise as I also watched Crown Court as a kid.

[Guest]

I've reached the requisite number of posts whereby I can do it myself once a month.

I don't see why it takes so long to qualify either - I've watched two series of Garrow's Law and feel totally fit to practise as I also watched Crown Court as a kid.

Law and Order is the recommended drama series. Doesn't matter if it's the UK or US version.

[Daggers]

[Captain...]

Marko - so-called transparency will not stop judges being criticised. As I've suggested further down in this thread, a judge could give his reasonings for a sentence in full, broadcast at a time to suit everyone, and people will still not agree with the outcome. As I also suggested, this could lead to judges being pressurised into sentencing according to public opinion, and not using the guidelines and case law available to assist. If my defendant was sentenced, that sentencing was broadcasted, and the judge went outside of the guidelines, I would be appealing that sentence on that basis. You, as a taxpayer, would be paying for me to go down to London to do this.

It may not stop them being criticised but at least people will be able to criticise them based on what they said, and not on the Mail interpretation of what they said, if the video is available at least it will be informed criticism. I don't think it would lead to judges being pressurised by public opinion any more than it is now with tabloids screaming vitriol from every headline on high profile cases (For example Liam Stacey and Tram Woman get much harsher sentences than they deserved IMO).

You mention that screenings would not be live. So how are you going to stop hearings from being edited to the "interesting points"? Sentencing hearings can take half an hour, they could take considerably longer. It's not going to overcome the issue of selective reporting. There are some court reporters who do the job better than others. I believe that getting accurate and informed reporting is more important than broadcasting the whole exercise, and if done properly, would be better understood.

I am not sure what the process being proposed involves, but it could not be broadcast live as you can't predict when sensitive information will come up, the original article talks only of the summing up being recorded, but I would be happy with a situation where all court proceedings are recorded, but only the relevant parts would be released for broadcast. Of course any recordings released to the media could be edited, but they could still be made available on the web in unedited form by the Courts for those that have an interest in the case to be able to watch and form an opinion on.

I imagine it would also make it easier in appealing a case to have a video record of the trial and not just a written record.

You don't think it'll sensationalise proceedings? Seriously? It's nothing to do with "twisting" and "distorting", as you've interpreted it, it's about the reaction of the public and the media to crimes, and to those accused of them, and to those found guilty. You might not see it happening, but I'm cynical enough to believe there would be a media frenzy surrounding proceedings against, for example, a child murderer, more so than there is now.

It all depends on how it is done, but I don't see it sensationalising things more than they are now, the only risk is if recordings not meant for public viewing are leaked, that would be my concern, but I would hope that in these high profile cases recording would be stopped until the final summing up, verdict and sentencing.

You ask how many people can attend proceedings - how many people are going to be around to watch court tv when it's happening, let alone how many are going to watch it instead of Corrie, Eastenders, Top Gear, etc.? People will only want to watch the "interesting cases", as in what interests the public, again. In the same way that the public gallery fills up when a hearing is of interest to them, it'll be the same with court proceedings broadcast on the TV. See? Hype, sensationalism?

If there was a Court TV channel, I don't think anybody would watch it, even on a high profile case, they may tune in and watch it for a bit, then realise how boring it is and wait for the highlights on the news, but as you said, there are no plans to broadcast cases live so it is a moot point.

You say the public can see "justice being delivered", but it won't stop people from thinking it's "soft, archaic and out of touch". You're presuming that people will be happy to accept what the judge has to say once they've heard it all. I disagree; I can see it clouding issues further, and causing more discontent and criticism of people trying to work within a system that is already challenging to work in.

The difference for me is that they will be able to criticise from a position of knowledge, any criticism would be justified, and there would be a wealth of evidence to prove or disprove that judges are out of touch, and people would have access to it without their judgement being clouded by speculation and hearsay in a newspaper article.

Going back to the Somali women, it was the newspaper article saying it was a racist attack, stirring up feelings of race hate and islamaphobia, comparing it to cases of attacks by whites on muslims and how harsher sentences were imposed on white racists than Muslim racists all trying to push their agenda. If you have the ability to strip away all the rhetoric and listen to the Judge's own reasoning along with the facts of the case you would have a greater understanding of the reasons behind the sentencing. If you still think it is lenient or archaic, then fair enough, but at least it is your opinion and not clouded by a journalist with an agenda.

[Guest]

It may not stop them being criticised but at least people will be able to criticise them based on what they said, and not on the Mail interpretation of what they said, if the video is available at least it will be informed criticism. I don't think it would lead to judges being pressurised by public opinion any more than it is now with tabloids screaming vitriol from every headline on high profile cases (For example Liam Stacey and Tram Woman get much harsher sentences than they deserved IMO).

Court proceedings are tape recorded. Transcripts are available, on request. People aren't that bothered. They want information spoon-fed to them, and they won't want to sit through an hour sentencing hearing to get the fuller picture. We'l be no better off than we are now.

It doesn't matter whether they read a snippet in a newspaper, or watch an edited version from the horse's mouth.

The problem is the public has no confidence in the justice system. It's the application that is the problem, and not the proceedings themselves. Televising it will not instil confidence, changing the system to fit in with what public wants will only do that, and as we all have different views on how to deal with criminals, nobody will be happy.

I am not sure what the process being proposed involves, but it could not be broadcast live as you can't predict when sensitive information will come up, the original article talks only of the summing up being recorded, but I would be happy with a situation where all court proceedings are recorded, but only the relevant parts would be released for broadcast. Of course any recordings released to the media could be edited, but they could still be made available on the web in unedited form by the Courts for those that have an interest in the case to be able to watch and form an opinion on.

They're looking at summing up, and sentencing.

Summing up would be simpler, as it would be based on information given in open court, and to which the jury has seen and/or heard. But what purpose it serves in televising it, is beyond me.

Sentencing is more difficult, as there will be reference made to documents that are available to the judge, and to the prosecution and defence, where the contents are not given in open court, and with good reason. If you want transparent justice, you're asking the court to disclose highly personal information to the public. Not only does that open a can of worms, it again doesn't serve any purpose in televising proceedings where there could be more unanswered questions.

I imagine it would also make it easier in appealing a case to have a video record of the trial and not just a written record.

Believe me, working from a transcript is far easier than working from tapes/cds/dvds!!

It all depends on how it is done, but I don't see it sensationalising things more than they are now, the only risk is if recordings not meant for public viewing are leaked, that would be my concern, but I would hope that in these high profile cases recording would be stopped until the final summing up, verdict and sentencing.

I disagree; the whole reason this whole scheme is being touted has nothing to do with 'open justice'. It all started when Murdoch and his media cronies got all huffy about not being able to televise the MPs being prosecuted/sentenced in the expenses scandal. Not for the public interest, but because it interests the public. There's a huge difference between the two. Sky wanted to parade them on their news channel in some kind of public [and I've had cider, so can't think of the word]. This is what they will want to do in the vast majority of cases they will want to cover.

If there was a Court TV channel, I don't think anybody would watch it, even on a high profile case, they may tune in and watch it for a bit, then realise how boring it is and wait for the highlights on the news, but as you said, there are no plans to broadcast cases live so it is a moot point.

News programmes won't have the time to dedicate to show everything. So filming it is a moot point.

Also, who gets to decide which cases to cover, and which to ignore? Are we going to have cases graded on entertainment value? A dangerous road to go down.

The difference for me is that they will be able to criticise from a position of knowledge, any criticism would be justified, and there would be a wealth of evidence to prove or disprove that judges are out of touch, and people would have access to it without their judgement being clouded by speculation and hearsay in a newspaper article.

There's already a wealth of evidence to show how out of touch judges are; transcripts. Appeal cases tend to be easier to find, if you're concerned about whether or not judges are doing their jobs properly, and also have the endorsement or criticism following a legal review. TV is not needed.

A position of knowledge? I don't think it does. All it does is give you the judge's reasoning. Are people going to watching with their copies of Archbold and Banks on Sentencing sitting on their laps? No. If someone believes a criminal should get a tougher sentence than they were given, they will criticise it, regardless of whether the judge was right to make that decision.

Going back to the Somali women, it was the newspaper article saying it was a racist attack, stirring up feelings of race hate and islamaphobia, comparing it to cases of attacks by whites on muslims and how harsher sentences were imposed on white racists than Muslim racists all trying to push their agenda. If you have the ability to strip away all the rhetoric and listen to the Judge's own reasoning along with the facts of the case you would have a greater understanding of the reasons behind the sentencing. If you still think it is lenient or archaic, then fair enough, but at least it is your opinion and not clouded by a journalist with an agenda.

Correction; it was the Daily Mail and the Sun who turned it into a racist argument.

The story was reported in the Leicester Mercury, quite fairly, in my opinion. It was followed up with an interview with Rhea Page, who expressed her disappointment her attackers weren't jailed over the attack, because of it's severity. She said she was scared to go out, for fear of being attacked by random strangers.

I read the story at the time; I didn't think the sentence was lenient, as it's quite typical where defendants have no previous. Compare it with Joe Mattock's sentence, for example. But I was surprised by the lack of comments about it, as for me, the shocking thing about the story was that it highlighted the booze culture in this country, and made me glad I don't go out into town much these days (this is what this story should have been all about, in my opinion).

It was two weeks before those shit stirring rags picked up the story. They twisted the story for their own agendas. Now it may just be me, but I take what they report with a pinch of salt, and check them out before jumping to any conclusions, however I didn't need to this time.

I don't think filming proceedings would have helped. For a start, would it have been chosen for filming?

Even if it was, it doesn't stop the footage being edited. It doesn't stop people from hearing the bits they want, and ignoring the parts they don't.

This story was a non-story until the tabloids found it. As most cases that pass through the courts are.

Hundreds of people are processed through the courts each week. Who is going to say what is or isn't going to be reported? Even the newspapers can't cover every single case. I go back to my earlier point; it's little to do with 'open justice', and more to do with news channels wanting to have their own way.

[Daggers]

Court proceedings are tape recorded. Transcripts are available, on request. People aren't that bothered. They want information spoon-fed to them, and they won't want to sit through an hour sentencing hearing to get the fuller picture. We'l be no better off than we are now.

Disagree here, sorry.

There are many learning styles and mine is bent towards having stuff shown to me or listening to information - give me a book of text written in a dry manner and I close up shop.

I don't want spoon feeding, I just want it in a form I find accessible.

[Captain...]

Court proceedings are tape recorded. Transcripts are available, on request. People aren't that bothered. They want information spoon-fed to them, and they won't want to sit through an hour sentencing hearing to get the fuller picture. We'l be no better off than we are now.

First of all thanks for replying, I really appreciate your view on this as you are speaking from experience.

I, like Daggers' says in his post above me, would much rather be able to view a video of something than read it if I am trying to get information as quickly as possible, it leaves much less to interpretation, and it is also in part laziness. In my imagination it would give the possibility to have an embedded video of the judges verdict on the web page accompanying the article.

Also how available are these transcripts, can they be viewed online, or do you need to request them from the courthouse?

Whilst I don't doubt it is being encouraged by the media, I would like to think it would also help keep the media honest and also allow people to find information out for themselves, I think the more information that is readily available that hasn't gone through a journalist filter the better.

I understand youe concerns but I think if handled well then it could be a good thing, but the dangers are of it being ill-thought out and shoddily implemented and cause serious problems.

[Guest]

I'm against it, and I feel strongly about it. It's one of the few places where the media, who I think have far too much control and influence, can be kept in their places.

I do appreciate that some people do have an interest, and don't have the time and the ability to go and sit in the public gallery, and believe it or not, I do see the argument for cameras in court, even if I don't agree with it.

I just love a good argument though

Transcripts are usually obtained from the courts themselves, and there is a fee; this is because the tapes are not typed up due to the number of cases v the number of staff available, and the lack of interest in reading them.

Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords) cases have judgments available online, some are subscription only, but the BAILII website has some of them, including latest developments in the Criminal division. The Times also used to report, but since the paywall, I've no idea if they still do.