Broadcasting any part of Crown Court proceedings is a big step. Many have voiced reservations. As ever am interested in evidence & haven't seen any theory of change from @MoJGovUK as to how the positive effect will work. But we do have some evidence of potential negative effect
Last year Sarah Moore of @UniofBath & colleagues published Seeing Justice Done, a paper on filming criminal court proceedings. They started from the (sensible) premise that the way something is filmed makes a difference to people's understanding & views of it.
There were 2 main styles -one where there were fixed cameras which stayed fixed on a figure (judge/lawyer) while they were speaking. We use this in Supreme Ct & Court of Appeal. The other style was used in Breivik trial where cameras cut away, zoomed, panned, moved in courtroom.
The team found that public understanding of criminal process was greatly improved in the case of the more active filming. In fact the impression created by the fixed camera broadcasts of E&W Supreme Court & Court of Appeal were not positive
"A recurring theme in the focus groups, irrespective of the type of footage watched, was concern over selectivity. Participants frequently expressed frustration at not being able to see more, and in discussing their restricted vantage point in watching proceedings, commonly
questioned why the footage directed their attention to particular courtroom participants and not others. The frustration was especially acute in the group composed of members of the University of the Third Age". The footage from fixed cameras was viewed as "amazingly dull"
Views of the judiciary were particularly negative when all the viewers could see were judges talking."Extracted from a wider context by virtue of the single-frame, fixed cam-era arrangement, the images of judges seemed to invite scrutiny, less about what they were saying and more
about his or her manner and bearing. Some saw the judges in positive terms, as 'clear', 'concise', 'intellectual', and 'dispassionate'
More frequently, comments were negative. Participants took particular exception to judges’ tone of voice, described variously as 'punchy', 'harsh', 'unemotional', 'brusque', 'intimidating', 'blunt', and having 'no empathy'..."
The academics conclude that the way we film criminal proceedings now "is likely to encourage a perception of that judge as unaccountable and out-of-touch. Moreover, such a perception was likely to be seen as emblematic of problems of the criminal justice system more broadly.
In this, and other ways besides, the dominant approach to courtroom filming achieves precisely the opposite of what governments anticipated". This is qualitative research but does indicate that we need to be wary of the idea that filming cases will increase trust in the system
