Nobody disputes the proposition that justice must be done and justice must be seen to be done. That notion exactly catches the argument about television and the courts.
What I want to do in the short time available to me today is to set out what the Government's position in relation to these issues is, to say what we are going to do about it - and what we're not likely to do about it.
The justice system exists to do justice. If it does not do justice in public it risks slipping into unacceptable behaviour, and losing public confidence.
Our courts with a few exceptions are open to the public. But very few people who are not involved in cases ever go near a court. Most people's knowledge and perception of what goes on in court comes from court reporting and from fictionalised accounts of trials. But the medium which gives most access to most people, television, is not allowed in our courts.
Should that change ? Is there a public interest in allowing people through television to see what actually happens in our courts in their name ?
In a modern, televised age, I think there is a case to be considered here. And that is what the Government is going to do.
I can announce today that I will issue, I hope later this year, a consultation document examining in depth and in detail the issues around televising the courts in England and Wales.
I believe this issue requires a full and considered public debate. There are many difficult questions involved. We will consult widely with all sides. We will take no precipitate action.
I think we will need, for instance, to consider separately the question of first instance trials and appeals. I can see no case for televising cases involving children. The greatest interest is bound to be in criminal trials. But our criminal justice system rests on people giving evidence. And no change to make our courts more open and more accessible should worsen or jeopardise in any way witnesses and victims. I believe there is very substantial evidence that if people believe their evidence was going to be televised or might be televised that would reduce the likelihood of their coming forward to give evidence. So the interests of witnesses and victims must and will be protected. The prospect of being filmed would make people more nervous of coming forward and giving evidence. Foreign experience supports that. And it would make the process more distressing.
So my strong inclination is that such considerations outweigh the benefits of the public broadcasting of first instance ]trials. Appeals are a different issue. Witnesses rarely appear in appeals. So the case for televising appeals may be much stronger.
We will look at all these issues in our consultation paper, including how the courts are televised elsewhere, like the USA for example, and examples with some parallels like the introduction of televising of Parliament.
As part of this wide-ranging examination, I can also make a further announcement. We have agreed with the judiciary and with the broadcasters a pilot experiment for some limited filming in the appeal courts. This will not be for broadcast, but solely for evaluation. It will be carefully controlled. It will take place only in courts with no juries and very few witnesses. Those who have no wish to be filmed will not be filmed. The dock in criminal appeals and the witness box will not be filmed at all. The results will be fully and carefully evaluated.
I know these are difficult and delicate issues here. I know that broadcasters will want to press for change. But my responsibility is to consider the issues fully and carefully, focusing on the doing of justice by the courts. That is what we will do.
Cameras in the courtroom would be a big step. We have to make sure that any such step would benefit justice, not burden justice. We must protect witnesses and jurors and victims. We must make sure that the process does not reduce justice. It must increase justice. We don't want our courts turned into US-style media circuses. We will not have OJ Simpson-style trials in Britain.
But I believe we do need a proper public debate on these issues now. We do need these issues to be considered properly. But justice being done and being seen to be done is a priority list, not two parts of equal standing. Our watchword in the debate will be clear. Justice should be seen to be done. But our priority must be that justice is done.