Public Gallery
In the USA Conrad Murray's trial had people queuing for the public gallery as though it was the stage-door to one of Michael Jackson's concerts. Charged with the famous singer's manslaughter, Jackson's former doctor had inevitably become the centre of media attention.
Ironically, television appears to have reintroduced the public gallery to the people. Perhaps predictably in a trial involving such a famed celebrity, the theatricality is not lost.
Yet since the debacle of the O.J. Simpson case there is a sense that the media is also on trial.
Sound Bites
In the UK motivation for outlawing cameras in courts in 1925 was, in part, because they attracted growing public interest in sensational and criminal trials. The more grisly ones received the most attention.
Nevertheless, last September justice secretary Kenneth Clarke announced filming will soon be allowed in UK courts. With growing calls for "greater transparency" within the judicial system, the government wants parliament to permit filming during judges' remarks and sentencing.
A Case of Bad Law Reporting
Originally reported by the BBC in a recent case of contempt of court, a teenager was charged with taking a photograph with his mobile phone during a trial at Luton Crown Court. This swiftly resulted in his own trial and concluded with the 19 year old receiving a two month custodial sentence. The Times and the Guardian newspapers, among others, followed up this story with noticeably similar reports.
It was claimed the photograph was innocent and therefore the harshness of the sentence was excessive. Though a minor crime, the reports suggested a huge injustice had been done.
However, according to The New Statesman, the news items had demonstrated "bad law" reporting. Being a friend of the defendant, the teenager's repeatedly disruptive behaviour was seen as provocative and upsetting. Added to that the photograph, taken during evidence, led to a further infringement against the victim.
The young man "may or may not have received too harsh a sentence." But in this case it appears public sympathy may have been manipulated by misdirected information.
Exposure
As far as endorsements go for the media's undertaking of responsibility to the judicial system, it was hardly inspiring. Though perhaps it has shown there is something to be said for simply televising judges' summing-up and remarks.
It may help to prevent added intimidation which is already a cause for concern as indicated in a statement by the charity, Victim Support. "We know, from our experience of supporting 270,000 witnesses a year that many witnesses are nervous about being seen by people in the public gallery."
Yet witness anonymity is frequently not guaranteed by the courts. Despite assurances beforehand that this will not be the case, "vulnerable witnesses" are often left exposed. According to the charity, the criminal justice system is not yet adept at identifying intimidation of witnesses. This needs to be "dramatically improved" before further exposure by the media.
Victim Support does agree, nonetheless, that parts of trials may be beneficial. They could well increase understanding of the judicial system. However, "witnesses in criminal trials should never appear on camera against their wishes."
Televising Criminal Trials
Yet in the past public executions often encouraged the sympathy of the masses. If the punishment was seen to be excessive it could even result in a riot. The spectacle of punishment is nothing new.
What is new is whether advanced technology helps or hinders objectivity when supplying the public with information. Being under the gaze of the judge, the public gallery may facilitate objectivity despite such close proximity.
In addition to this, Victim Support says television and cameras increase anxiety and could lead to less reliable evidence. "Witnesses can become confused or find it difficult to remember details when they are afraid."
To begin with, the justice secretary's goal of using trial summaries and sound bites to inform a much larger public gallery may well go some way in protecting the vulnerable, including defendants, where it is often forgotten that they are innocent until proven guilty.
Even so, it is doubted that partial trials and television editing will convince the public of greater transparency. Many believe the whole trial needs to be seen. It is for this reason they consider the court's public gallery is enough.
True Crime
In 2005 a government consultation found 55% of individuals "supported a complete ban on televising criminal trials." However, a higher percentage of organizations and court regulars surveyed were in favour of broadcasting.
In reality, criminal trials would bring much higher ratings and advertising revenue. It would therefore be far too good a prospect to hold back on for much longer. True crime is, after all, the nation's most popular entertainment genre.
Join the Conversation