Does this gown make my bum look big?

Published on Thursday 4 October 2007 01:13

"LIGHTS, camera, action!" I somehow can't imagine those words being uttered in the Scottish courts before the clerk of court announces "court rise". An even worse thought would be our bench spending time in the make-up room: "Does this wig suit me? Does my bum look big in this gown?"

But a TV camera could be coming to a court near you soon. Elizabeth Cutting, the Scottish judiciary's public information officer, has been asked to re-examine guidelines drawn up by Lord Hope in 1992 because advances have meant the presence of cameras in court would not now be as obtrusive as would have been the case 15 years ago. Those guidelines are onerous, with consent required from all and sundry from the judge down to the clerks. Cutting has said that under no circumstances would cameras be allowed if their presence would present any risk to the proper administration of justice - which means no chance that witnesses or jurors would be pictured. Which, pretty much, leaves sentencing and appeals.

I have previously written about the accountability of the bench when it comes to sentencing. There has been a tendency for them to turn against the media when a judge is criticised for what is seen as unduly lenient sentence. Last year the Sentencing Commission, chaired by Lord Macfadyen, stated that the keys to improving the understanding of sentencing were simplicity and clarity, and that the greater transparency recommended would help create a regime that was understandable. A large part of the blame was laid on the media for failing to understand sentencing. The media are now getting sentencing statements designed to counteract that criticism by explaining why such a sentence was handed down. That is all for the better.

Cutting argues the next logical step is to televise. One clear benefit from the judges' position would be that it would be harder for the media to manipulate the facts should there be a recording that could be televised. But the media do not always spin against the bench. The coverage of the World's End trial puts that into perspective. You would have thought that when Lord Clarke issued his judgment, that there was no case to answer, there would have been the usual calls for his head on a platter. Not so. The press saw through Crown Office's whispering campaign against Lord Clarke and did not give him the monstering that had previously befallen one of his colleagues: when Lord Reed passed down a short sentence on a child rapist, the Sun had a phone poll on whether he should be sacked.

As for broadcasting the appeal process, in July 2005, Colin Boyd, the then Lord Advocate, called for more court cases to be televised. His rationale was to help the public understand how the justice system works. The problem is that at times its hard enough for a solicitor to work out what the appeal is about, let alone the public.

I suppose the next mouthwatering TV court instalment will be the next Lockerbie appeal. I can't imagine the BBC not applying to get that televised. If some of the newspaper coverage concerning Crown Office withholding statements has any founding then that might certainly add a bit of razzmatazz to proceedings. Given Boyd cited the appeal as a shining example of acceptable broadcasting of what takes place in court, it would be hard for Elish Angiolini, our current Lord Advocate, to object. Wouldn't it?