The presence of the media in the form of televised trials adds a whole new dimension to the process of the trial. The system of trial by jury is meant to operate on the principle that jurors should only take account of what they see and hear from legitimate sources, namely witness testimony, material evidence, arguments from counsel, and directions from the judge. If cameras were allowed it would be difficult for them to remain oblivious to the media circus going on around them resulting in the popularity or unpopularity of the victim or accused being a substantial influence in the decision.

Defendants who are found to be innocent will never be able to return to normal life once the nation has seen them in the dock. A defendant who appears on a televised trial may have his name cleared but his face will always be remembered.

There is always the fear that the people involved will be more concerned as to how they come across on television than on the reason they are there. It may make witnesses more reluctant to give evidence or conversely exaggerate the evidence to gain fame.

Without cameras it is not as if the process of trial would be closed there are transcripts of the proceedings, free access to reporters and the presence of those who wish to attend.

The courts being televised cannot be compared to the situation of House of Lords or Commons. In those cases, the presence of the cameras served to increase the degree of openness and accessibility to democratic processes, which affect us all. They are forums for public debate and clashes of interest concerning the direct representatives of the electorate.

A blanket ban on courtroom cameras would undermine the public’s faith in the courts. They are necessary to give the public an informed view of the justice system.

The cameras in the OJ Simpson trial exposed the pre-existing weakness of the system and in the wake of the trial a panel of experts has put forward a package of recommendations for the L.A court system.

The cameras cannot be blamed for the Louise Woodward and OJ Simpson fiascos but the huge media scrum outside on the steps and all the "experts" giving us their opinions. The rules of what lawyers and witnesses say outside the courts before the trial has reached completion should be tightened.

Cameras are more likely to prevent miscarriages of justice than to cause one. If the cases of The Birmingham Six and The Guildford Four had been tried under the scrutiny the cameras provide the result could have been very different.

Cameras provide an important balance to hysterical or biased coverage allowing people to make there own decision about the case.

Justice needs to be seen to be done, but having televised trials is an issue that must be approached with care. The imposition of cameras in courts should possibly be considered with certain provisos. 1) If the parties who are involved consent, 2) Only broadcasting after the trials completion, 3) If they are to be used then televised trials should be mandatory including those of the rich and politically powerful, 4) The judge must have ultimate discretion where he feels their presence would be prejudicial.
Justice and entertainment must not be confused.

By Paul Tebbit (General Secretary)