Paul Lambert raises research issues with placing cameras in court
The Supreme Court is not enough. At least it is not enough for Sky News, ITN, and the BBC when it comes to television cameras. Broadcaster lobbying has been successful in convincing the prime minister and the justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, to expand the camera experiment to permit the broadcasting of certain civil judgments and sentencing decisions. The timing also appears linked to a political reaction to the recent riots. Such knee-jerk reactions rarely make good policy.
The announced rationale is that the public will be educated and its confidence in the court system increased. The policy and legal discussion, however, needs to be more nuanced and discerning. There are too often general assumptions, for example, that all television courtroom broadcasting will be educational, or will be informative, or will enhance public confidence in justice and the judiciary. Another headline argument is that television cameras in court will distract the participants in court.
Fault line
One of the biggest faults with the discussion, even in the US, is that proponents and opponents fail
