Kanika Sharma & Ozan Kamiloglu review the changing public imagery of justice
Historically, open justice was grounded in physical presence. The courtroom was a space where anyone could, in principle, witness the administration of law. Thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham described publicity as a safeguard against arbitrary power: the judge under the watchful eye of the public, held accountable through exposure. In Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, Lord Shaw defended the principle of ‘openness of justice’; a commitment reiterated in R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233), ‘Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.’
However, for much of the 20th century, courts in England and Wales insisted that justice be seen but not photographed. The emergence of portable photographic technologies and the rise of the penny press turned trials—especially sensational murder and divorce cases—into a spectacle for public consumption. The judges’ unease with cameras in the courtroom led to s 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 (CJA 1925) which banned
