I was never a fan until now. TV cameras, and media pundits, swarming all over the much abused figure of our lady Justice was unlikely to make her look much better. But then I thought again. Politicians have not listened to the siren warnings about the mess they make of criminal justice by legislating the process into an expensive morass. What if we showed the public how hard we try to make it work despite everything? What if we let the public in to see what lawyers really do? TV in Parliament may not have done much for some politicians, but at least it makes what they do a little more relevant to the rest of us.

It occurred to me that lawyers are rather better behaved, and their quaint but familiar court dress, much loved by TV and the court user, promises and delivers greater dignity, than a host of politicians dressed but in a little brief authority, who make a profession out of borrowing the others clothes – sometimes for years and years without acknowledging where they got them. Seeing what lawyers really do too might show the difference between legislator and litigator. Televising the Courts might actually de-mystify the law – and show that under the horse hair lie some hard working and serious men and women who give the practice of law a good name, and give the lie to those who brief against us, and the lobby that panders to them.

Much of the best advice the Bar gives is in writing or behind closed doors, is given conscientiously, and in circumstances where client privilege is sacrosanct. Much of advice tendered at this stage, saves money to the client and to the public, and takes the pressure off the judiciary and the courts. Courtrooms, despite public perception, areis a sometimes necessary last resort, yet theyit still provides the most abiding and exciting image of us. None of us look and sound like Perry Mason, few are as “ham”, and few of us possess the sexual magnetism and energy of a Judge John Deed. Most potential actions are settled because of the legal, mediation and counselling skills of the barristers who are instructed to advise, and as a result of the growing direct licensed access that the Bar now offers in the wide arena of the civil law designed to avoid litigation. The cameras rarely enter here, although even that is not unknown.

The pilot experiment in broadcasting the courts involved actual court hearings at the Royal Courts of Justice. I have seen these, and they demonstrate clearly that televising the courts has the power to educate, and to generate respect for the idea of Law and Justice, and the professional guardians of these ideals. The pilot has shown how unobtrusive filming in Court can be. I believe there is a case for extending these pilots to a wider range of cases, and to actual broadcasting of particular cases. We may soon begin to wonder what all the fuss was about.

It will not be all “Lights, Camera, Action!” There will be no additional lights, and the action will be the same. No approaching the Bench, or wandering over for a confidential and close-quarters harassing of the witness will be allowed. Spats either on the feet, or between counsel, will still be out. Discreet cameras, and a proper code of broadcasting ethics and protocols for the courts can dispel the real concerns that the presence of cameras alone would cause problems in the trial process. Some might even find the process boring, and in reality the broadcasters will not be making widespread applications to film trials unless the public interest is there, and the importance of the case justifies it.

Administrative courts, appellate courts, international legal issues, public inquiries, coroners courts, and even Courts Martial and other courts of first instance, might all provide usefully broadcast courtroom moments. Being able to see judges and lawyers at work will provide living exemplars of a modern profession. Technology is being deployed increasingly in the courtroom, and the adversarial system proves its worth when compared to the sometimes cumbersome judge-driven continental court system. Everyone might stand to gain from this.

Of course there needs to be some control over who is entitled to broadcast the images. There will always be scope for clever editing to make a mockery of particular proceedings, and to alter proper perception. This cannot be in the public interest, and would soon lead to judges refusing applications by the media to broadcast. Broadcasting of Parliament, in the chamber and in committee, is probably now about right. One advantage the courts will have, unlike Parliament, will be that lawyers and judges will not be allowed (even if they wanted to) to “doughnut” in towards the camera points to make sure they are in shot.

What is that we are proposing, and what do we reject? Well Justice must take first place, and the judge must be the guardian of that core interest; not those who might wish to televise the work of the courts, nor those who would advertise their cause. Witnesses, the young and vulnerable, must be protected. The faces of jurors, in the rare criminal case that would be suitable for such broadcasting, would not be shown. The faces of the public in the gallery, or reactive shots would be not be allowed. The broadcast media would not be permitted to sensationalise, and I believe they can now be trusted in this. Lawyers and litigants will soon learn the folly of playing to the camera, or using the cause célèbre as a route to media stardom. This would bring such an experiment into speedy and well deserved disrepute, and probably finish it off.

In 1989, Jonathan Caplan QC in his report “Televising the Courts” encouraged us to see broadcasting the Courts as something that could bring benefits, as well as a greater sense of ownership of our justice system. Parliament, and probably the professions were not ready for such a change, and the damaging effect of the broadcasting of the trial of O.J.Simpson in the US, put back the idea for several years. Caplan however was ahead of his time. He said “The need to ensure fairness and justice in our courts must remain paramount, but – whilst stressing the need for caution in this whole area – we feel that neither of those supreme interests would be imperilled if televising was subject to strict rules of coverage and to the supervisory discretion of the trial judge to exclude the camera whenever it was necessary in the interests of justice.” We believe the time has come for another push towards broadcasting the courts.

The Bar Council’s recent response to the Government’s consultation brings the Caplan report up to date. The Bar’s findings are that “evidence is now available concerning filming in Australia and New Zealand which suggests that the generalised concerns with respect to witnesses, when filming is properly controlled by the judges, fall away. Reticence in witnesses coming forward has not necessarily been seen to follow a decision to film a case in New Zealand. Academic research from Australia suggests that once the cultural change to televising courts is embraced some of the perceived problems, particularly concerning witness, disappear. More research is required but the positive views of leading lawyers, in particular of the Commonwealth judges (including Justice Black, the Lord Chief Justice of Australia) suggests that a properly safeguarded system of televising could work equally well in the jurisdiction of England and Wales.”

On the aims of broadcasting we have this to say: “Public understanding and confidence in the system of justice benefits society as a whole. Fair and responsible reporting destroys myths, misunderstandings and false political rhetoric. Responsible televised broadcasting of court proceedings could serve as an invaluable bridge between the legal system and society.”

We acknowledge the need to take the greatest of care in some cases, and with some witnesses. There is no real case for example for the intrusion of cameras into the family courts. The dangers of using cameras to film parts of criminal trials are probably obvious to anyone with experience of what can go wrong, and where appeals, and even retrials are possible, the dangers are multiplied. Children and some victims and some accused of crime, particularly sexual crime, need especial protection. The justice system, in particularly the criminal justice system depends upon the willingness of witnesses to come forward and give evidence. Criminal investigations blighted by the lack of willing witnesses are too numerous to mention (Steven Lawrence, Phillip Lawrence, Damilola Taylor etc). Nothing should be done which could or would further dissuade witnesses from coming forward or once forward from giving their best evidence. A code of practice drafted by the judges would provide assistance for the trial judge who could, on the application by the parties, by an individual witness or upon the judge’s own motion, consider whether an individual’s evidence should be filmed.

A standard of responsible, accurate and fair broadcasting, if implemented, could serve to further the principle of open justice and supplement the role of the Courts in ensuring that justice is done and seen to be done. It could also do much for the image of the lawyer. We should welcome it.

Bruce Houlder QC- Chairman, Public Affairs Committee, Bar Council