Hansard

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 basic principle is that someone is innocent until found guilty. Donald Findlay asked the Justice Committee:

“If someone is acquitted, why should they have their image blasted into every home by the television?”

He also said:

“The lives of people who are convicted or acquitted of serious criminal charges could be put at risk, because there are people out there who want to seek vengeance.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 2 October 2012; c 1781-2.]

I associate myself with those concerns.

I would also like to comment on the position of victims of miscarriages of justice. I have specific constituency experience of that from two cases in particular. At the times of the trials, there was significant media interest. A victim of a miscarriage of justice has a statutory right to appeal, and the appeal can again be subject to significant media interest. One day, with almost no support, the person is released from jail and told that they can walk free, yet they receive less support from society than someone who was guilty and has served their time.

Such people are a tiny minority, thankfully, but their individual human rights need to be protected as well. Are we saying that their images should be blasted across the television? If we allow that to happen, it could create danger as well as compounding the miscarriage of justice. I have seen at first hand how such people’s mental and emotional wellbeing is damaged by the lack of support. I wanted to put that on the record while we are discussing media exposure.

I want to say something about the vulnerability of witnesses. Detective Chief Superintendent Cuddihy said in his evidence to the committee:

“When the due process of law results in judicial proceedings, we must ensure that victims, witnesses and their families are protected from the fear of intimidation and influence—perceived or otherwise—and that they are free to give evidence without any undue pressure being applied to them that may result in the integrity of the evidence, the trial and justice being compromised.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 2 October 2012; c 1793.]

Again, I associate myself with that concern.

Without going into any details, as that would be inappropriate, I am convinced that I have witnessed intimidation of witnesses in a courtroom simply by the fact the accused was in the same courtroom—never mind what would happen if greater exposure was shone on witnesses in the schemes and communities from which they come. I have significant concerns in relation to that.

I have significant concerns about the concept of someone who willingly gives evidence being labelled a grass by a minority of people in some of our communities and how that plays out in those areas. We should be doing what we can to support people to give evidence rather than putting barriers in their path. I am concerned that, although we want to see as much transparency as possible in the judicial system, we might not meet the ends of justice for people who are vulnerable by shining more of a light on the system.

On the other side, there is the issue of conniving witnesses. Not all witnesses go to court to tell the truth. If someone agrees to be a witness, there could be a concern that they will play to the audience when giving evidence. The criminal defence solicitor Aamer Anwar stated in his written submission that potential safeguards will do

“little to tackle how the filming of witnesses will stop them embellishing their evidence or tailoring it, due to the fact that they will be judged by millions watching at home”.

Indeed, witnesses may follow the trial via whatever media platform in advance of taking to the stand. That is another concern of mine.

I am concerned about how things will play out in the reporting of serious and organised crime. I tend to think that those involved at the very top of serious and organised crime do not like light to be shone on their activities, as they can be quite secretive. However, their henchmen are not that secretive and have a swagger in some of our communities. At times, they have been quite impudent when they have been on the witness stand or, indeed, been the accused. The idea of giving more exposure to that behaviour causes me significant concern. The issue is reducing, but it is still the case that in some of our communities glamour is associated with the gangster—the person who derives an income from criminality. I worry that the more exposure those people get, the more antiheroes we may create in some of our vulnerable communities. I therefore have a series of concerns.

Flipping completely on the issue, I go back to the core position that the more information we can get into the public domain about how the judicial system operates and the process of trials, the better. However, there is a huge array of significant issues, some of which I have outlined, which I am sure that the minister will consider when she weighs up her personal views on what will of course be an independent judicial review of the role of the media in the justice system.

16:38