Filming trials in UK courts

Very conflicted on this. Trials, by and large are open for public scrutiny, but courts can only accommodate a limited number in the public gallery and high interest cases will attract larger numbers......
On the other hand justice isn't, and should never be, a source of gratuitous entertainment......
Having said that I did see a recording of the televised sentencing which didn't, in my opinion, explain the reasoning behind the sentence.
I've done jury service 4 times, some of the barristers can be very theatrical, playing to the gallery (in this case the jury)... I worry this could be exaggerated were TV cameras to be present...
So on balance I'm probably marginally against, but open to persuasion.

It's only the sentencing that's being filmed, when the judge explains how they have reached their verdict, then it's hardly a media circus.
What it might do is give people more insight into the grounds on which the sentence was decided and perhaps stop them having knee jerk reactions to some sentences.

I agree. Sometimes the sentencing on some crimes seems very lenient and so it would be interesting to see how a judge comes to the decision that they do.

Well it would be compulsive viewing, wouldn't it? How could we resist seeing real life high profile court proceedings if they were on TV. Your natural instinct is to watch the story unfold.

Humans have a desire to see what they shouldn't. Public executions were watched by thousands at one time. Romans watched gladiators, chariot racing and Christians being fed to the lions, all good exiting entertainment.

No worries ?.

I have a horrible feeling that I would be a hypocrite and watch trials if they were televised, but I don’t approve - I need protecting from myself

Doodledog

MaizieD

It is only intended to televise the sentencing.

Why are people leaping to conclusions about what will be shown and objecting to something that isn't about to happen?

Because the question in the OP is should trials be filmed and broadcast in full?

Speaking for myself, I was answering that, not leaping to conclusions at all.

I stand corrected. I didn't read the OP properly.

I actually agree with you that whole trials shouldn't be televised. Sentencing only is fine in my book.

Are we talking about what is happening now, or whether what was asked (hypothetically) in the OP would be a good idea?

Quite so, Maisie - and I think it's useful, especially for those with a "tabloid" idea of sentencing, to get an insight into why the sentences are given as they are. It will, I hope, show the thinking behind it and mitigations and so on.

MaizieD

It is only intended to televise the sentencing.

Why are people leaping to conclusions about what will be shown and objecting to something that isn't about to happen?

Because the question in the OP is should trials be filmed and broadcast in full?

Speaking for myself, I was answering that, not leaping to conclusions at all.

It is only intended to televise the sentencing.

Why are people leaping to conclusions about what will be shown and objecting to something that isn't about to happen?

NotSpaghetti

I think this is enough. The sentencing in full but no more.

I do agree, it is enough to see the sentencing.

I agree Doodledog. I don't like details of trials being made public at all. There is so much information about people put in the public domain, I would hate it if I were involved in a trial and my identify was made public even though I hadn't done anything wrong. But it has always been so. There are details of trials from the Victorian era in the newspapers and they often use them on Who Do You Think You Are for instance.

I would be happy for the judge giving sentence being filmed but nothing else. There would be enough information in their summing up without hearing every detail of the crime reported in the news with all the gory details.

MaizieD

Chestnut

Doodledog I also think that people have a right to privacy and some of the things that might come out (even in the summing up) could be damaging to any of the people involved.
But facts produced in court are not private and they do come out. I'm not sure where you would draw the line on what is private and what isn't. Any trial of interest is reported in some detail for the public, even gory details on rape, abuse and murder.

This.

Trials have rarely been held in 'closed courts'. The public has always had access to them.

No-one's privacy is being violated.

I know that trials (and autopsies) are in the public domain, but I absolutely don't think that this means that people's privacy is not being violated by that.

You could argue that criminals forfeit their right to privacy, but suppose a criminal has a lover who gets exposed, or a child, or that he committed the crime for what used to be called reasons of passion that implicated others. People could be behaving perfectly legally but have their private lives dragged through the courts. That is fair enough in the interests of justice, but it is a violation of privacy if the details are televised for people to treat as entertainment.

I feel the same about those awful TV programmes that go through the autopsies of the rich and famous. We all know that Elvis died eating a burger on the loo, for instance - but do we really need to? Surely people can be allowed see dignity in death?

volver

The filming of sentencing has been allowed in Scotland for 30 years, I believe.

Quite right, volver. It is subject to permission and various restrictions though. I think that filming trials for broadcast may have been allowed since 2015, again, with restrictions on who can be shown (and only with their permission) and with the exception of some kinds of cases.

I'm afraid that children have access to all manner of horrors unless their parents are on the ball and find a way to control their screen access. I'm sure many don't.

The one thing that concerned me was that children could be watching as it’s the school holidays.

Chestnut

Doodledog I also think that people have a right to privacy and some of the things that might come out (even in the summing up) could be damaging to any of the people involved.
But facts produced in court are not private and they do come out. I'm not sure where you would draw the line on what is private and what isn't. Any trial of interest is reported in some detail for the public, even gory details on rape, abuse and murder.

This.

Trials have rarely been held in 'closed courts'. The public has always had access to them.

No-one's privacy is being violated.

I watched and listened to the sentencing of Ben Oliver because it was on the news and was very interested in hearing how the judge arrived at her decision. I hadn't followed the trial in the press but it was quite sensational in a way. As Volver said, filming of sentencing has been allowed in Scotland for a while, but I can't say that there is a huge demand to view it, in my experience. Only very high profile cases will be of any interest, I suspect.

Doodledog I also think that people have a right to privacy and some of the things that might come out (even in the summing up) could be damaging to any of the people involved.
But facts produced in court are not private and they do come out. I'm not sure where you would draw the line on what is private and what isn't. Any trial of interest is reported in some detail for the public, even gory details on rape, abuse and murder.

I love CourtTv - my favourite channel

RichmondPark1

It seems a terrible invasion of privacy for the victims, relatives and also the accused at possibly the lowest moment of their lives. Sensationalism? Oversharing? A complete lack of respect for individuals? I don't understand why we all need to share in this and won't be watching.

I agree with this.

I am interested in trials and courts, and I can't say I would never watch; but I don't think it's a good idea for the reasons you give.

I understand that justice has to be seen to be done; but I also think that people have a right to privacy and some of the things that might come out (even in the summing up) could be damaging to any of the people involved.

The filming of sentencing has been allowed in Scotland for 30 years, I believe.

The public has the right to attend most trials. What's the difference between that and showing the sentencing, not the trial, on TV?

Proceedings are already reported on in the media if the press thinks there's sufficient public interest.

The clip of the sentencing on the BBC web site showed only the judge. No defendant, no witnesses.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62332824

I think this is enough. The sentencing in full but no more.

There have been concerns raised (justifiably) that witnesses should not be shown as they could possibly be targeted and intimidated. I think the type of trial would have to be seriously considered if they ever decided to broadcast the full trial.

I do not think trials should be filmed. They are not entertainment, and each trial represents a tragedy of sorts in someone's life. They are not conducted in secret, the public and press are admitted and the dealings are fully reported.

I remember the OJ Simpson result being shown in the news, and thinking this man could be sentenced to death, watching his reaction as the verdict was read out and feeling voyeuristic. I have avoided live reports of trials ever since.