Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 23 October 2012
23 Oct 2012 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Role of the Media in Criminal Trials
It is clear from this afternoon’s debate that the issue of how the media interact with criminal trials is extremely complex. Any liberal society must walk a fine line between allowing free and open reporting of criminal proceedings and ensuring that the right to a fair trial is in no way compromised. With the growing prevalence of social media and 24-hour news channels, the first of those aims is flourishing while the second is increasingly threatened.
I emphasise that I hope and believe that no media outlet in Scotland would ever intentionally seek to compromise criminal proceedings for the sake of a story. Yet with increasing and, particularly in the case of Twitter, instant access to various details of on-going criminal cases, there is a greater risk of unfiltered information entering into the public domain, of the publishing of partial facts, or of skewed or prejudiced perspectives—any one of which has the potential to influence proceedings.
A particular concern in this regard, which was raised by many of the experts we heard from in committee, is about the role of jurors in the information age. The question of how the changing manner in which information from court cases is disseminated to the public—and so often into the hands of those involved in deciding the case—should impact on how the justice system works is far from straightforward.
In committee, we heard suggestions ranging from the rewriting of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to a move to a system of professional juries. I would be interested to know whether the minister is considering the media’s impact on jury trials as part of the Government’s wider reforms of the Scottish justice system.
I am sure that much of the focus of the debate, particularly in the press, will be on the on-going discussions about the presence of TV cameras in courtrooms, which is what we have mostly discussed this afternoon. That is not least because of the Lord President’s announcement last week that current policy is to be reviewed.
Cameras have been permitted to film in Scotland’s courts only on the rarest of occasions. The amount of press attention that the decision to allow coverage of the Gilroy sentencing attracted is testimony to its unusualness.
The arguments in favour of greater TV coverage—that there would be greater transparency in the legal process, which is an inherently Liberal Democratic view, and that justice would be shown to be done, which is perhaps not so much an inherently Liberal Democratic view—are well rehearsed. Greater transparency and more open access to our justice system can only be a good thing.
For lay people who come into contact with the courts for the first time, the experience can be intimidating. I hope that I will not offend anyone in the chamber with this observation, but lawyers and judges can oftentimes seem to go out of their way to confuse, not least by the use of jargon and Latin terms. I do not intend to spend the day making the case for the use of plain English in courts—although that case might be worth making—but people should have the right to understand how the legal system works. They can be reassured that it works and works fairly only through that understanding, and the system will become less intimidating only through that understanding. Opening up court proceedings and letting more people see what takes place in the courtroom appears to be a prime way of achieving that aim.
The Government will soon publish its victims and witnesses bill. Protecting witnesses and victims must remain a primary concern whenever we talk about media coverage of the courts. That is one of the key arguments against greater media access. Even attending court can be a daunting experience for those concerned, and the presence of television cameras is unlikely to make things easier. Donald Findlay QC was particularly clear on that point. He argued that broadcasting a criminal trial
“would put pressure on witnesses, and it is difficult enough to get people to come forward.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 2 October 2012; c 1781.]
That is a legitimate concern.
Mr Findlay also fairly made a point that is often overlooked: what of the accused who is subsequently found not guilty? Other members have said that it would perhaps be unfair for them to return to their lives having spent a fortnight being publicly and professionally accused of committing a crime that their peers subsequently determined that they did not commit. Does that not risk the public prejudging and endangering the fundamental principle of being innocent until proven guilty?
There are also practical concerns. Broadcasting an entire trial is one thing, but if there are cameras in the courtroom, it is inevitable that an edited highlights reel of the day’s proceedings will find its way on to the evening news. Having a reporter presenting a balanced summary is one thing, but whether it is possible to edit five or six hours of footage into a two-minute report without creating a narrative is quite another matter.
Others have referred to OJ Simpson effect. The last thing that we want is a media circus around criminal trials. That would favour no one. It would not favour the accused, the victim, the witnesses, the jury or, ultimately and most important, justice itself.
Despite those problems, I still find myself drawn to the position that we ought to allow greater access to our justice system. It is a fact that the justice process seems closed off and mysterious to outsiders. It is not as open and transparent as it could or should be. It is not as simple as telling the TV companies to go ahead and start filming, but it is clear that we should give greater consideration to the matter.
In our committee evidence session, Steve Raeburn of The Firm magazine drew an interesting parallel. He said that the BBC Parliament channel
“is an example to follow ... It runs debates as often as Parliament sits, late into the night, probably to a limited audience but to a dedicated audience that is interested. It is our Parliament and we are entitled to see it.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 2 October 2012; c 1787.]
I wonder whether the principle is not the same. Of course, many issues must be addressed first and balances need to be struck, but is it not still our justice system and should we not be entitled to see it in action?
16:43
I emphasise that I hope and believe that no media outlet in Scotland would ever intentionally seek to compromise criminal proceedings for the sake of a story. Yet with increasing and, particularly in the case of Twitter, instant access to various details of on-going criminal cases, there is a greater risk of unfiltered information entering into the public domain, of the publishing of partial facts, or of skewed or prejudiced perspectives—any one of which has the potential to influence proceedings.
A particular concern in this regard, which was raised by many of the experts we heard from in committee, is about the role of jurors in the information age. The question of how the changing manner in which information from court cases is disseminated to the public—and so often into the hands of those involved in deciding the case—should impact on how the justice system works is far from straightforward.
In committee, we heard suggestions ranging from the rewriting of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to a move to a system of professional juries. I would be interested to know whether the minister is considering the media’s impact on jury trials as part of the Government’s wider reforms of the Scottish justice system.
I am sure that much of the focus of the debate, particularly in the press, will be on the on-going discussions about the presence of TV cameras in courtrooms, which is what we have mostly discussed this afternoon. That is not least because of the Lord President’s announcement last week that current policy is to be reviewed.
Cameras have been permitted to film in Scotland’s courts only on the rarest of occasions. The amount of press attention that the decision to allow coverage of the Gilroy sentencing attracted is testimony to its unusualness.
The arguments in favour of greater TV coverage—that there would be greater transparency in the legal process, which is an inherently Liberal Democratic view, and that justice would be shown to be done, which is perhaps not so much an inherently Liberal Democratic view—are well rehearsed. Greater transparency and more open access to our justice system can only be a good thing.
For lay people who come into contact with the courts for the first time, the experience can be intimidating. I hope that I will not offend anyone in the chamber with this observation, but lawyers and judges can oftentimes seem to go out of their way to confuse, not least by the use of jargon and Latin terms. I do not intend to spend the day making the case for the use of plain English in courts—although that case might be worth making—but people should have the right to understand how the legal system works. They can be reassured that it works and works fairly only through that understanding, and the system will become less intimidating only through that understanding. Opening up court proceedings and letting more people see what takes place in the courtroom appears to be a prime way of achieving that aim.
The Government will soon publish its victims and witnesses bill. Protecting witnesses and victims must remain a primary concern whenever we talk about media coverage of the courts. That is one of the key arguments against greater media access. Even attending court can be a daunting experience for those concerned, and the presence of television cameras is unlikely to make things easier. Donald Findlay QC was particularly clear on that point. He argued that broadcasting a criminal trial
“would put pressure on witnesses, and it is difficult enough to get people to come forward.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 2 October 2012; c 1781.]
That is a legitimate concern.
Mr Findlay also fairly made a point that is often overlooked: what of the accused who is subsequently found not guilty? Other members have said that it would perhaps be unfair for them to return to their lives having spent a fortnight being publicly and professionally accused of committing a crime that their peers subsequently determined that they did not commit. Does that not risk the public prejudging and endangering the fundamental principle of being innocent until proven guilty?
There are also practical concerns. Broadcasting an entire trial is one thing, but if there are cameras in the courtroom, it is inevitable that an edited highlights reel of the day’s proceedings will find its way on to the evening news. Having a reporter presenting a balanced summary is one thing, but whether it is possible to edit five or six hours of footage into a two-minute report without creating a narrative is quite another matter.
Others have referred to OJ Simpson effect. The last thing that we want is a media circus around criminal trials. That would favour no one. It would not favour the accused, the victim, the witnesses, the jury or, ultimately and most important, justice itself.
Despite those problems, I still find myself drawn to the position that we ought to allow greater access to our justice system. It is a fact that the justice process seems closed off and mysterious to outsiders. It is not as open and transparent as it could or should be. It is not as simple as telling the TV companies to go ahead and start filming, but it is clear that we should give greater consideration to the matter.
In our committee evidence session, Steve Raeburn of The Firm magazine drew an interesting parallel. He said that the BBC Parliament channel
“is an example to follow ... It runs debates as often as Parliament sits, late into the night, probably to a limited audience but to a dedicated audience that is interested. It is our Parliament and we are entitled to see it.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 2 October 2012; c 1787.]
I wonder whether the principle is not the same. Of course, many issues must be addressed first and balances need to be struck, but is it not still our justice system and should we not be entitled to see it in action?
16:43
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith)
Lab
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-04505, in the name of Christine Grahame, on the role of the media in criminal trials. I call Christine Gr...
Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
SNP
I certainly hope that I do not use 13 minutes, Presiding Officer.I am pleased to open this debate on the role of the media in criminal trials on behalf of th...
The Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs (Roseanna Cunningham)
SNP
The Justice Committee has chosen an important and topical issue for debate. I look forward to hearing the views of all members, and I have no doubt that thos...
Lewis Macdonald (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
Members will know that it is not only in this place that the relationship of the media with the criminal justice system is under scrutiny. Lord Justice Leves...
Margo MacDonald (Lothian) (Ind)
Ind
Does the member think that there might be a balancing act performed by television in court, given the uncensored information that can come out of court throu...
Lewis Macdonald
Lab
I will come on to the new media, but I completely accept Margo MacDonald’s point that the two issues are related and that any inquiry that the Justice Commit...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
Mr Macdonald, please start to conclude.
Lewis Macdonald
Lab
I conclude by referring to the new media issue that was raised by Margo MacDonald. As has been said, those who tweet, text or blog can reveal unreported info...
Willie Rennie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
LD
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. There is an important matter that needs to be addressed. I apologise for interrupting the debate. Earlier today, the ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
Mr Rennie, as you will know, the Presiding Officers are not responsible for the veracity of the statements of members of Parliament. However, you have raised...
John Lamont (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Con
We welcome today’s opportunity to consider the role of the media in the criminal justice system. Scotland’s criminal justice system does not exist in a vacuu...
Margo MacDonald
Ind
Does the member agree that there is a potential hazard in the case of someone accused of behaving inappropriately towards children who is filmed in court, bu...
John Lamont
Con
I acknowledge that concerns exist, but many such arguments are not against the use of cameras in court proceedings per se, although they might be arguments a...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
As a result of interruption, the debate is very tight for time. Although members have six minutes for speeches, shorter speeches would be appreciated and mig...
Sandra White (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
SNP
I will try to be as speedy as I can be, to allow everyone to speak.At the Justice Committee meeting, one witness—Iain McKie—made the good point that“we canno...
Graeme Pearson (South Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
The digital era offers a severe challenge to the courts with regard to how they administer justice in the modern environment. There is no doubt in my mind th...
Margo MacDonald
Ind
I apologise for my question looping back a bit, but I wanted to get in before the member progresses his argument much further. Is there the possibility of ha...
Graeme Pearson
Lab
I am sure that such an intervention, once televised, would create a great deal of conflict and difficulty for courts in deciding such a challenge.I encourage...
Roderick Campbell (North East Fife) (SNP)
SNP
I refer to my register of interests as a member of the Faculty of Advocates.The televising of court proceedings has not been reviewed since the then Lord Pre...
Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Lab)
Lab
On the issue that the member just raised about policing the internet, was that not debated during the passage of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Thre...
Roderick Campbell
SNP
There was certainly a reference to it, but I do not think that it was a substantial part of the debate on the bill. However, that debate is now history and w...
Joan McAlpine (South Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
I draw attention to the register of members’ interests and the information that I am a columnist with the Daily Record.I welcome the opportunity to participa...
Margo MacDonald
Ind
That is an intriguing point. Obviously, the member was not in favour of witnesses blogging afterwards and giving a highly partisan account, but does not ever...
Joan McAlpine
SNP
Yes, absolutely—after the trial. I guess that I was talking about people blogging from the court and giving partial reports of what was happening in court th...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
I would be grateful if you would close, please.
Joan McAlpine
SNP
Thank you.The Scottish Court Service already has stenographers who compile verbatim transcripts of trials, but it is difficult for members of the public to g...
Mary Fee (West Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
When the Contempt of Court Act 1981 came into force, people received news through the print and broadcast media. At that time, the print and broadcast media ...
Colin Keir (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
SNP
This is an incredibly interesting subject and there have been some excellent speeches from members.Over the years, we have trusted the integrity of journalis...
Bob Doris (Glasgow) (SNP)
SNP
I will say a little about the role of the accused in the process. I do not think that members have said much about that in discussing television exposure.The...
Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD)
LD
It is clear from this afternoon’s debate that the issue of how the media interact with criminal trials is extremely complex. Any liberal society must walk a ...