Cameras and live text-based communication in the

Scottish courts: a consultation

RESPONDENT INFORMATION FORM

Please Note this form must be returned with your response to ensure that we handle your response appropriately

If you hold Judicial Office, please specify:
Title (Mr, Ms, Sheriff etc.) / Mr
Surname / Beatson
Forename / Jamie
Postal Address / Kingdom News Agency, 54 Balmanno Park
Bridge of Earn
Perth
Ph2 9RL
Phone Number on which we may contact you. / 07791 563 772
Email address at which we may contact you. /

Confidentiality

If you would like your responses to be treated as confidential please indicate this clearly. Responses from those who reply in confidence will only be included in numerical totals and names and text will not appear in the list of respondents.

Please return the completed respondent information form and your response to the consultation by 31 January 2014

to: or

Media Review Responses

Judicial Office for Scotland

-3/R11 Parliament House

Edinburgh

EH1 1RQ

Consultation questions

The review group is interested to elicit a broad range of responses to this consultation. It would be appreciated if in giving your response to the consultation you provide answers in the format set out. However, if you have other comments to make, you may provide them in addition.

Appeals and legal debate

1. Do you perceive any risk to the administration of justice in allowing filming of legal debate in the following proceedings and for the following purposes?

purpose
proceeding / documentary programme / news broadcast / live transmission
civil first instance / No / No / No
civil appeals / No / No / No
criminal appeals / No / No / No

Please answer yes or no by deleting as appropriate (or circling your response if hard copy)

2. If you have answered yes to any combination, what risks do you anticipate? Please specify if the risks you have identified pertain to one or more combination(s).

3. Are there any steps which could be taken to minimise such risks?

Filming of first instance proceedings for documentary purposes

4. Should the court allow filming of criminal proceedings at first instance for documentary purposes?

Yes Please answer yes or no by deleting as appropriate (or circling your response if hard copy)

5. Does filming for documentary purposes carry with it any risk to the administration of justice?

No Please answer yes or no by deleting as appropriate (or circling your response if hard copy)

5a. If yes, what risks do you anticipate?

5b. If yes, are there any practical steps which could be taken to minimise that risk?

6. Are there any aspects of first instance criminal proceedings for which such permission should not be granted?

First diets, criminal preliminary hearings and intermediate diets where no guilty plea is entered should not be used for broadcast until the end of proceedings.

7. If such permission is to be granted, should the consent of all participants to be filmed be a prerequisite to permission?

No

7a. Alternatively, if such permission is to be granted, should assurances that the consent of all participants will be attained to be broadcast be a prerequisite to permission?

No

7b. Would either prerequisite be overly restrictive for the educational benefit of allowing filming for documentary purposes?

Yes. Accused people subsequently convicted of an offence should not have to right to “opt out” of being filmed/pictured.

7c. If you consider that to require the consent of all participants to be filmed would be too restrictive, are there any particular participants whose consent, either to filming or broadcast should nevertheless be obtained?

Vulnerable witnesses and complainers – particularly in sexual cases.

8. Do you think that there are any particular types of first instance criminal trial in which the consent of all participants should always be a prerequisite?

No

9. Do you consider that there should be any restriction on, or prerequisites for filming of first instance civil proceedings for documentary purposes?

No

Filming for subsequent news broadcast

10. Should the court allow filming of any criminal proceedings at first instance for this purpose?

Yes Please answer yes or no by deleting as appropriate (or circling your response if hard copy)

10a. If yes, what type of trial or aspects of the proceedings do you think could be filmed for this purpose?

Certainly any case proceeded with on indictment in the High Court and Sheriff Court – and in some circumstances cases on summary complaint (perhaps in those circumstances with permission of the sitting sheriff). As stated above, pre-trial hearings (first diets, criminal preliminary hearings, section 76 hearings, intermediate diets etc) should be allowed to be filmed, but only for use in the event of a) a guilty plea or b) a subsequent conviction. In practice the amount that would actually be used for broadcast would undoubtedly be minimal.

10b. If yes, are there any kind of proceedings which you think should not be filmed for this purpose?

Evidential hearings (eg hearings on section 71 or devolution minutes).

10c. If yes, are there any witnesses who should not be filmed for this purpose?

Complainers in sexual offence cases and vulnerable/child witnesses. However, I would see no problem with their words being voiced by actors with their faces not displayed if their evidence was audio recorded.

11. If permission is to be granted, should the consent of all participants be a prerequisite to such permission?

No Please answer yes or no by deleting as appropriate (or circling your response if hard copy)

Please explain the reasons for your opinion.

There are limited circumstances in which an accused person is likely to give their permission to be filmed. As it stands when proceedings reach a certain point – generally at the point of conviction, or the close of the Crown case - it is legitimate to use a still picture of an accused person without their permission. Indeed, the same can be said of witnesses who are regularly pictured without their permission requiring to be obtained. As stated above, it should not be acceptable for an accused person to simply opt out of being filmed, with the pictures only to be used when a case reaches the same stage as is required for pictures to be used in the print and broadcast media as it is at present.

12. Are there practical measures that could allow more contemporaneous broadcasting of criminal proceedings without impacting on the proper administration of justice?

A closer working relationship between journaliasts – particularly those who specialise in court reporting – and staff would help. I read in the consultation document about some kind of register of people who would be allowed to use live text based communication in court. I would extend that to allow those on the register permission to use still and moving cameras in the courts without having to seek special permission on every occasion. Those on the list would require to show their understanding of the regulations they must follow, but then be allowed to use said technology in a manner approved by the court service. Failure to abide by regulations would result in removal from the approved list. The fact is that the vast majority of criminal cases in Scotland are covered by individual freelance journalists or small agencies – very few cases result in national broadcasters turning up, cameras in hand, and even less would see them committing the resources to get in court footage. If we want to open the courts up to a greater audience in terms of filming in court then the easiest way is to allow those who already cover the courts and have relationships with those working in court administration the tools to provide that kind of facility. Many people working in court agencies are multimedia journalists and are capable of providing footage for news output as it is. The added bonus is that they would automatically pool footage to all broadcasters, avoiding the undesirable scenario of multiple camera crews fighting to capture the same images. It also allows for a degree of flexibility for those covering the courts – where it is quite often the case that the situation can change very quickly in terms of last minute pleas being entered or cases coming up out of the blue. This is particularly the case in the sheriff court – even in indictment cases.
On a related note, to avoid disruption to the administration of justice, it would be desirable to organise some kind of computer access to court documents to approved people – particularly in indictment cases. These documents must be stored in electronic format somewhere centrally, and it would be advantageous for these to be accessible to those who specifically cover the courts – rather than having to burden clerks by chasing them for paperwork when they clearly have other things to be doing. This is a tangentially related point, but an important one when taken with the points above in terms of contemporaneous coverage.

13. What is your view in respect of these matters in relation to the filming of civil proceedings?

Again they should be open to broadcast – however civil proceedings tend to be of far lesser public interest.

Live transmission

14. To what extent do you consider that filming of criminal trials at first instance for live transmission is consistent with the proper administration of justice?

The circumstances in which this is likely to be desirable (eg, a major celebrity case equivalent to the OJ Simpson trial or a terrorist outrage such as Lockerbie) are so rare that they would only need to be considered on a case by case basis. Even then it would require careful consideration – for example, live output would have to be blacked out during legal objections during trials. The resources required to cover a trial live would be enormous and the audience for such a thing so minimal that it would almost certainly not happen for run of the mill cases, and even in big cases be unlikely to attract much interest.

15. What are your views in relation to civil proceedings?

The circumstances in which live coverage would be desirable is even more vanishingly rare in terms of civil cases that it would easily be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Structured approach to considering applications to film

16. During the course of the review it has become clear that whilst each application for filming must be considered on its merits, there would be benefit in a more structured approach to applications for filming. The review group was impressed by the New Zealand model. Do you think the New Zealand guidance (Appendix VIII) is a suitable model for Scotland?

Yes Please answer yes or no by deleting as appropriate (or circling your response if hard copy)

Please explain the reasons for your opinion.

The New Zealand guidance sets out a workable, sensible set of rules that are flexible enough to keep things realistic and easy for news organisations wishing to cover cases in court without overburdening the court administration.

Live text based communications

17. Do you consider that LTBC in criminal proceedings at first instance present any risk to the administration of justice?

No Please answer yes or no by deleting as appropriate (or circling your response if hard copy)

17a. If so what risks do you anticipate?

18. Can you suggest any practical measures which might allow LTBC whilst preserving the integrity of proceedings?

As suggested above, only allow those who have been placed on an approved register of media – who have demonstrated their knowledge of the restrictions they have to abide by – to use LTBC in court. Only allow those sitting in unobtrusive press areas to use it. I'd also suggest allowing reporters using said technology to access wi-fi in court. At the courts where I presently work wi-fi networks already exist, we'd simply need a network key to access it. That would prevent the necessity to use a mobile phone network to gain internet access, thus preventing any question of interference with recording equipment in the court. Reporters could be required to put any equipment (eg mobile phones or tablets) on “airplane mode” for the duration. Should also inform the macer/clerk/court officer in court that such technology is to be used before commencing.

19. Do you consider there would be merit in the implementation of a register of approved people who may use LTBC from court?

Yes Please answer yes or no by deleting as appropriate (or circling your response if hard copy)

Please explain the reasons for your opinion.

As stated above, it provides a framework for those using such technology to demonstrate they know the rules and legal obligations involved – lessening the chance of any inadvertent contempt of court.

19a. Should those seeking entry on that register be required to complete a statement confirming awareness and understanding of the Contempt of Court Act 1981?

Yes Please answer yes or no by deleting as appropriate (or circling your response if hard copy)

Please explain the reasons for your opinion.

As stated above.

Thank you for your response to the consultation.