 |
21st
July 2005, The Scotsman
IT WAS heartening to read this week that the Lord Advocate,
Colin Boyd, is calling for more court cases to be televised.
His rationale is to help the public understand how the justice
system works. By televising court hearings, he believes this
would increase transparency and reassure the public over sentencing.
The problem is that, while he would like to see more cameras
court, he has a real issue about actual trials and witnesses
playing to the camera. Rather than following the US model, where
televised court cases can become media circuses, he is in favour
of televising appeals.
He cites the broadcast of the 2002 appeal of Lockerbie bomber
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi as a shining example of acceptable
broadcasting of what takes place in court and thinks other cases
could follow suit.
|
|
It
may be acceptable for the courts and for the proper administration
of justice, but for the general public, appeals are about as
exciting as watching paint dry. Convoluted legal arguments,
citing legal precedents and discussions on admissibility of
evidence are not going to educate the public on the transparency
of the courts. They will pick up their remote controls and change
channels.
The public want the mundane household disputes of Judge Judy,
which they can relate to and the show trials that they see on
their TVs. They want Ally McBeal and Murder One . They have
had their appetite whetted by the likes of the OJ Simpson trial,
as close to the Hollywood ideal of law in practice as you can
get. But that is not going to happen in Scotland. There is more
to justice than mere transparency.
|
|
So
how do you bring the courts to the people? One obvious way is
the documentary rather than live coverage. But even documentary-makers
face an uphill struggle when it comes to televising the courts.
Take for example Lion Television, who had been authorised to
film a documentary at Glasgow Sheriff court provided they followed
certain guidelines. The rules which Lion had to follow included:
obtaining the prior consent of the trial sheriff, which the
sheriff could later revoke or qualify; the agreement of the
Procurator Fiscal and the defence agents; the consent of all
those who were to be filmed was required, whether or not they
were to be named in the documentary, including the clerk of
court, court officer and shorthand writer, the accused, his
counsel and solicitors, witnesses, jury members and police officers
appearing in any capacity.
Having fulfilled its criteria and having passed the tape to
the BBC to broadcast the film, a woman who had previously consented
to being filmed in the documentary obtained an interdict through
the courts to stop her being identified. How ironic - a programme
that would have done just what the Lord Advocate wanted refused
airtime by the courts. That will reassure the public!
|
|
