Do court cases need to be shown on tv? | thearticle

Cameras will be allowed in Crown Courts in England and Wales for the first time. This means that judges’ sentencing remarks in serious high-profile criminal cases will be streamed on TV and

online. For some, this is incredibly exciting news; a victory for transparency which allows the public to have a better grasp of legal processes. John Battle, Head of Compliance at ITN,

remarked that: “This change will help a wider audience to see and understand the criminal justice process for themselves.” But it strikes me troublesome for a number of reasons. For one, it

is a mark of our societal obsession with cameras. Nowadays, it seems almost everything has to be filmed, from spats publicised on Twitter to politicians forced to go on _The Andrew Marr

Show_. In the case of the judicial process, do cameras really add anything meaningful — or do they simply sensationalise? Countries like America already film court cases, and it has not

always led to the best outcomes. The OJ Simpson murder case in the ’90s was a deeply unsavoury spectacle, and these trials arguably cause great pain for victims’ families, whose suffering is

publicised and often retrospectively spun into Netflix shows. Cameras risk turning justice into a spectator sport, where victims, witnesses and jurors are treated as characters in a soap

opera. In British courts, the people who will become central to the drama are judges. They will find their personalities, appearance and decisions more scrutinised than ever before. Brexit

has already brought several judges to the public’s attention, with mixed results. The_ Daily Mail _infamously deemed judges “Enemies of the People” after they’d granted the whole of

parliament control over the Brexit process — a headline that created uproar. We can expect even more of these attacks given that cameras are heading to the courts. This can go both ways,

incidentally, meaning that some judges will become minor celebrities — should they vote in a way that’s popular with the establishment. The latest example of this is Lady Hale, who famously

delivered the verdict that Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament was unlawful. Since then she has been invited to guest edit Radio 4, as well as being profiled in the _Guardian_,

all of which has been on the pretext that she’s a genius feminist icon. The reality is that it’s only because powerful Remainers perceive her as an architect of their movement. With cameras

in court, we could see more vain judges indulging in their newfound limelight. The other depressing aspect of camera culture is that it almost certainly encourages moral posturing. Just look

at the parliamentary Select Committees, where people are invited to give evidence to groups of MPs. The latter often act like judges at a Salem witch trial, almost in competition with each

other as to who can look the most morally offended by those they are brought into question. Judges are generally sharper and less fame-obsessed than parliamentarians, but cameras can make

individuals self-aware in a way that isn’t necessarily helpful to justice. They may be more concerned about the way they are coming across than the facts of the case. Of course, those who

have pushed for filming in court have assured us that there is no need to worry; that only the sentencing will be filmed and we won’t end up like America. But one suspects this is merely a

step towards all court cases gaining coverage, such is the public appetite for real-life drama. Draft legislation has been given to parliament already, and broadcasters are celebrating. But,

one day, we may remember the virtues of not filming everything.