Good morning.
Welcome to this seminar on our consultation paper on broadcasting in the courts, and thank you for coming. I'd especially like to thank our distinguished speakers and panel members here today.
I believe that today is an important part of the debate on the issues around broadcasting court proceedings. What I want to do today is in effect two things:
We published in November a consultation document on broadcasting in our courts called, imaginatively, Broadcasting Courts.
Our purpose was, I hope, clear: in response both to technological change and to changes in people's behaviour, we wanted to debate the case for and against allowing broadcasting of court proceedings.
Our approach was, I hope too, equally clear: that cameras in our courtrooms would be a big step, and not a step that any of us involved - the Government, the judiciary, the courts, the users of the courts and the media - should take without the fullest possible consideration and debate, and knowing fully what the consequences would be.
Accordingly, our attitude towards the issue was and is strictly neutral: we wanted to see the arguments which would be put forward in a genuinely open debate.
I believe our approach and attitude in trying to meet our purpose is proving to be the right one. I believe that the results so far of the consultation exercise we are carrying out reflect that approach.
But our approach rests on a number of specific and particular parameters, too.
To begin with, the first parameter is to ask ourselves what the justice system is for. The argument and the debate over broadcasting in the courts go to the very heart of the justice system in this country. The justice system exists to do justice. Everything that we do in sustaining and as necessary reforming the system must be to that end: justice, and justice for all.
But the justice system is and must be, by and large, a system which works in public. Our courts, with some clear and widely-accepted exceptions, are pretty well completely open to the public. If the justice system does not do its justice in public, it risks slipping into unacceptable behaviour, and risks losing public confidence.
But of course, most members of the public do not go to court. Their knowledge of what goes on in court comes not mainly from their own experience - though for some, of course, it does - but from court reporting, or from trials portrayed in fiction or in drama.
Most people now get their news and their entertainment not from these sources, though, but from television. And yet television, the medium which gives most access to most people, is not allowed in our courts.
So the key questions the consultation paper considers are whether that prohibition should stay, or whether it should be changed. Is there a public interest in allowing people to see what happens in their name in our courts - through the medium of television ?
We (again subject to the parameters I'll come to) as a government have no view on these overall questions. It may be that broadcasting in courts could, potentially, have significant benefits in terms of education and public information. Increased visibility and familiarity could increase public confidence in the justice system. These are important objectives, worth securing.
But it may be, too, that broadcasting in courts could worsen our system of justice. Could make the process of reaching just decisions worse, through grandstanding of those taking part, or by deterring those who ought be coming to court to help in the process of justice from doing so.
So if we do anything at all in this area, whatever we would do should do nothing to impair justice. In particular we would do nothing that would worsen or jeopardise the experience of victims, or of witnesses or of jurors.
The willingness of victims and witnesses to come forward and testify, and of people to do duty as jurors, are vital elements in our criminal justice system. Victims and witnesses, and especially the vulnerable and those who may be suffering from intimidation, are at the heart of our approach to criminal justice. Improving support for victims and witnesses, and ensuring cases and trials are prepared and managed better are key priorities for me, for the Government and I believe for ensuring justice.
As I have said on a number of occasions the prospect of giving evidence - whether as victim or ordinary witness - is terrifying enough for most people. I think for very many people the prospect that their evidence might be televised or sound broadcast would make both the thought of giving evidence, and the giving of evidence, even worse.
I therefore see little case for broadcasting first instance trials. Or any cases involving children. Or family proceedings - though I emphasise this is not the same issue as print journalists reporting family cases, about which I can say that I do have an open mind at the moment, though there are important issues that need to be addressed, but not for debate today.
But the last thing we want to see in Britain is trials which would be US-style media circuses.
These are red lines for the Government in this debate. We shall not cross them. Broadcasting in our courts would have to be a benefit to justice, not a burden to justice.
We set out these points when we published the consultation paper. I am very pleased with the range of responses we have had so far.
The consultation paper, response questionnaire and discussion forum are all available I'm happy to say on the internet, in addition to the hard copies we have sent to all those who might be involved in the debate.
We have already received a hundred and twenty completed questionnaires, and we look forward to the responses from the many stakeholder groups and organisations.
For now, I will only note that the overwhelming majority of those who have responded have been consistent in one area. Again and again, people have said that we must ensure that "justice is done" and that this must be the most important factor in any consideration whether to broadcast.
They have also stressed that the impact on people involved in the case - victims, witnesses, families - should be a primary consideration. As I have made clear again today, these are views which I wholeheartedly support.
But I do want to hear more from those who will be frequently affected by this issue. Judges, lawyers, and court staff, broadcasters and regulators will all have useful experiences and expertise to give in this area.
And I also want to hear from the public. I am especially pleased that some members of the public, with no professional interest in the outcome, are participating in the debate and have sent us their comments. It is very important to me to hear from people who have taken part in court proceedings, especially where they have been victims or acted as witnesses.
Events like today play a valuable part of the consultation process too.
And the process will also be helped by the results of the pilot of filming in the Court of Appeal. Several broadcasters did some filming at the Royal Courts of Justice last in November and December, and they are currently working the material up into dummy programmes and clips. And I'm very glad to see people who've been involved both as judges and broadcasters here today.
These will never be broadcast, but they will show us how film of proceedings might be used - for example in news programmes or in documentaries. I am looking forward to seeing the results. And my thanks go to the court, and to all those who took part in the pilot.
Once the consultation is complete, we will be able to consider your responses before deciding on the way forward. I should emphasize again that we are not making any proposals to change the current provisions prohibiting broadcasting at this stage. There are a range of possible approaches, and there are widely differing views.
The way ahead may well be to continue the status quo. I make no commitment to change. We will not have change for change's sake.
In what is in some ways the parallel case of televising Parliament, MPs
and peers took 20 years from first considering the issue to the first pictures
of Parliament being seen. And in many respects, the issues involved in considering
whether to televise Parliament are less complicated than those with courts.
So there will be no headlong rush to change. But I will ensure that we consult
thoroughly. We will consider the responses responsibly and carefully. We
will to take your views fully into account. And only then will we be in
a position to propose a way ahead.
So, to today's programme.
We have a range of speakers who will look at the issues from different points of view: senior judges from our own and from the Australian courts; a renowned academic; two barristers whose experience of television has given them different perspectives; and one leading silk who has chaired over twelve inquiries.
They have all given the issues involved careful thought, and are here to share with you their experiences, and their conclusions.
And of course we want to hear from you. The session at the end will be your opportunity to have your say, tutored I hope by the sessions that have gone before, to make any points you feel we have missed, or to react to views put forward by the speakers.
I hope that you will find today's seminar stimulating, and that you will play a full part in the day. We welcome the input from all of you to help inform our thinking in this complex area.
It is now my pleasure to hand you over now to Marcel Berlins, who is acting as chair of today's proceedings. You will know Marcel as one of the country's foremost legal journalists. Author of a range of legal books, he was for fifteen years presenter of Law in Action. As well as writing his regular column for The Guardian, Marcel lectures at City University on Media Law.
So - thank you for taking part in today's event. What happens here today will be important to the debate.
I believe we all here are concerned with justice. The argument about broadcasting
in the courts is caught precisely by the old adage that justice must be
done, and must be seen to be done. But the two elements in that view are
a priority list, not an equivalence. Our view is clear. Justice should certainly
be seen to be done. But our priority is and must be that justice is done.
That is the Government's position. That I believe is the right position.
I look forward to hearing your debate upon it.