Wednesday, January 28, 2015

COURTS ON CAMERA: Television & Twitter ‘may’ be allowed in Scotland’s “Victorian” courts but on judiciary’s terms and with permission of sitting judge

Cameras & tweets in Scotland’s courts – under judicial terms only. CAMERAS and tweets could be allowed in Scotland’s courts, according to the findings of a review carried out by Court of Session judge Lady Dorrian on recording and broadcasting of proceedings in court, and use of live text-based communications.

The proposals to introduce television and other digital media to courts on a limited, controlled basis, come almost twenty three years after Lord Hope - Scotland’s top judge in 1992 issued a statement to the media he was “considering the television question for some time and now believed it was not in the public's long-term interest for restrictions to remain.”

Accepting the limited proposals for members of the media to film and tweet in court, Scotland’s current top judge Lord President Brian Gill (72) said: “I am grateful to Lady Dorrian and her group for having carried out this exercise so thoroughly. These well-considered recommendations have the support of the judges. I accept all of the recommendations. They are entirely appropriate in the contemporary world. My office will now prepare guidance on the implementation of Lady Dorrian’s report.”

However, Gill – who previously threatened judicial censorship of journalists access to documents and court hearings in a fit of pique against the media last year - said journalists will only be granted use of digital media in courts if they register with the Scottish Court Service.

In a speech to a conference on Digital Justice this week, Lord Gill – who is currently fighting a two year battle with the Scottish Parliament against proposals to create a register of judges interests, wealth and links to big business - made it clear any member of the press who was going to tweet or make use of digital equipment must do so on the court’s terms only. Gill also said anyone not registered with the courts could not tweet unless the judge hearing the case gave permission to do so.

Gill said: “Journalists who register with the Scottish Court Service to gain access to the electronic portal-based system, should also be required to undertake compliance with the Contempt of Court Act. Journalists so registered should be permitted to use live text-based communication. Any person who is not on the register should require the permission of the presiding judge.”

And, in a separate submission to the consultation, an unidentified Court of Session judge who backs the proposals to introduce cameras said there would have to be tight controls on how cases were filmed.

The anonymous judge wrote: “Educating the film company regarding the nature of court proceedings the paramount importance of the interests of justice, and cultivating a relationship of trust with the film company so that the risk of erroneous impressions/misrepresentations, is minimised.”

In summary, the report recommends the following:

*Filming of civil and criminal appeals, and legal debates in civil first instance proceedings, such as judicial review or procedure roll hearings, should be allowed for live transmission. Subsequent news broadcasting and documentary film-making should be allowed subject to clear and comprehensive guidelines.
*The court should allow criminal trials to be filmed for documentary purposes in certain circumstances, subject to the safeguards referred to in the report. Cases involving children, sexual offences and vulnerable witnesses should not be filmed.
*No live transmission or filming for subsequent news broadcast should be allowed for criminal first instance business or for civil proceedings involving witnesses.
*For subsequent news broadcasts, the delivery of sentencing remarks of the judge should be permissible, with filming focused only on the sentencing judge.
* Filming of criminal trials for live transmission should not be allowed.
*In civil cases at first instance, filming for documentary purposes only should be allowed, but should exclude certain groups such as family cases and those involving asylum seekers.
*A structured approach to considering applications to film.
*All filming should be subject to robust, clear and comprehensive guidelines.  
*Journalists who register in advance with the Scottish Court Service should be permitted the use of live text-based communications such as Twitter from court, subject to guidelines which will be issued in due course.

The consultation and review – chaired by Lady Dorrian, comprised almost exclusively a judicial membership of Lord Bracadale, Lord Woolman, Sheriff Principal Stephen, and Sheriff Drummond. The group was supported by: Christopher Nicholson, Deputy Legal Secretary to the Lord President; Elizabeth Cutting, Head of Judicial Communications; Steven D’Arcy, Head of Strategy and Governance, Judicial Office for Scotland.

While the move to bring more transparency to Scotland’s courts is a welcome one, no substantive explanation has been given for hold ups in televising courts or why it has taken over two decades to address earlier statements in 1992 by former top judge Lord Hope on the introduction of cameras and other technology to Scotland’s antiquated courts – branded “Victorian” and ‘unfit for purpose’ by Gill himself in the Civil Courts Review.

During 1992, Lord Hope, the then Lord President, in effect opened Scotland's courtroom doors to the cameras when he announced, through the Principal Clerk of the Justiciary in Edinburgh's supreme courts, that modern technology had now advanced to a state 'where proceedings in court could be televised without undue interference in the conduct of proceedings'. Twenty Three years later in 2015, the glacial pace of change in Scotland’s courts once again promises occasional cameras & tweets, but only when judges deign it in their interests or perhaps, the interests of justice - to allow.

And, despite receiving over £80million pounds a year from public coffers to run the Scottish Courts Service, and multi million pound blank cheques to fund items such as the recent £60 million refurbishment of Parliament House in Edinburgh – Lord Gill’s seat of power, it is a fact public records on what goes on in the civil courts are hard to come by, with findings routinely anonymised where vested interests including lawyers are concerned of being identified in dodgy cases where judges secretly linked to litigants, law firms & big business, are not serving the interests of justice.

TOP JUDGE ISSUED THREAT TO BAN MEDIA IN COURT:

During the summer of 2014, in a bizarre fall out with the press, Scotland’s top judge Lord Brian Gill issued an edict threatening to ban journalists and the press from accessing court papers and hearings.

Lord Gill’s warning to the media read as follows:

NOTICE: ADVANCE ACCESS OF THE MEDIA TO COURT DOCUMENTS

1. For some time the Court has been reviewing the practice of allowing journalists an opportunity to see complaints and indictments for note-taking purposes before cases  call in court.The review was necessary because of significant concerns arising from the  Data  Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”) in relation to the disclosure of personal data and sensitive personal data in these documents.

2.  The current  practice  gives  journalists  an  opportunity to attend and report  on noteworthy cases; but  it is now clear that the information being disclosed is excessive for this purpose.

3.  In due course the courts will  move to an electronic  portal-based system  that will enable the media  to access  securely  information about  forthcoming  cases and,  in  time,  other  information  such  as  reporting  restrictions.  This  will provide sufficient information for reporting  purposes  but will ensure that  the court will comply with the requirements of the DPA.

4.  In  the  interim  the  current  practice  will  continue,  but  on  the  strict understanding that no information obtained from a complaint or indictment is to be published before a case calls in court.  In the light of recent breaches of that  understanding,  the  media  are  reminded  of  their  responsibilities  in  the matter.

Brian Gill Lord Justice General Edinburgh 30 July 2014

29 comments:

  1. For heavens sake, what kind of rabbit hole have these Scottish judges fallen down?

    TV cameras and the use of electronic communications are standard practice in Courts throughout the world - but apparently that's not good enough for the dinosaurs in Edinburgh.

    Less of the 'grace and favour' attitude please, this is the 21st century and people have rights.

    Nothing proper is gained by keeping the wheels of justice hidden.

    ReplyDelete
  2. *No live transmission or filming for subsequent news broadcast should be allowed for criminal first instance business or for civil proceedings involving witnesses."

    Ah, so business as usual then.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another attempt by the judges to control democracy and free speech.Gill and his kind have no place in a modern Scotland.

    ReplyDelete
  4. By the time Gill allows cameras in court humans will be extinct!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Note the terms of access to the courts - under their terms only yet everyone has to pay for Gill and his pals on the bench to fly around the world and promote themselves.

    Absolute madness anyone going to court these days it is a mugs game.

    ReplyDelete
  6. An interesting update to your post.

    This Lord Gill - is he all there?

    One minute he is threatening to kick journalists out of court and the next he comes up with this absolute CRAP about allowing journalists in with access to calculators as long as they register with him first!

    What a bunch of loons!

    ReplyDelete
  7. The anonymous judge wrote: “Educating the film company regarding the nature of court proceedings the paramount importance of the interests of justice, and cultivating a relationship of trust with the film company so that the risk of erroneous impressions/misrepresentations, is minimised.”

    What the hell??A judge answers a consultation and we dont get to know which judge??Could be Gill himself!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. The beeb presented it as something new from Gill nothing about 23 years on so they must have forgot about the story in the Independent..

    ReplyDelete
  9. *In civil cases at first instance, filming for documentary purposes only should be allowed, but should exclude certain groups such as family cases and those involving asylum seekers.

    I suppose this rules out hearing about corrupt lawyers being held to account to protect lawyers wallets etc

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous said...

    The beeb presented it as something new from Gill nothing about 23 years on so they must have forgot about the story in the Independent..

    28 January 2015 at 21:30

    What else can you expect from the BBC mouthpiece of the state and special interests!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Television is kept out of courts in Britain because the whole court/justice thing is well out of date and in another world and when people start to watch how courts really work they will either switch off or start questioning why they are having to pay for it all.

    Judges do not really deserve £200K salaries and free to have what they have without declaring it and your petition has brought all this up in the open first time ever.

    Maybe even this is a diversion by Gill to say he is doing something when it is all just the usual smoke and window dressing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Scotland sure is in the dark ages.

    Exactly why do journalists have to register with the court before they can attend a hearing?

    In most other countries journalists can walk into court and take notes not it seems in medieval Scotland.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Television & Twitter ‘may’ be allowed in Scotland’s “Victorian” courts but on judiciary’s terms (who runs the show) and with permission of sitting judge (with financial interest in cases they want to bury).
    =================================
    They are the state and are so powerful and unelected they are in my view professional criminals. A robber wears a mask. A Judge has a mask of secrecy and domination.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I can see the reason for asking permission to tweet or mess about with a mobile phone in court but there is no excuse for not allowing television in to the courts we all pay for.Is it a problem the judges have with their image or something like that?because if it is their boss Mr Gill has already put paid to any notion of honesty among the judiciary after the way he treats the Scottish parliament about this register idea of yours.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Why is this being announced by a judge instead of the Scottish Government?Too cowardly or have they left it all to Gill because he made himself the big chief?
    Courts are paid for by taxpayers and everyone has a right to know what is going on inside courts.
    Are the Scottish Government too afraid of Gill to come clean on courts and justice?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous said...

    Another attempt by the judges to control democracy and free speech.Gill and his kind have no place in a modern Scotland.

    28 January 2015 at 17:25

    Exactly!and why is it judges decide if there can be television in courtrooms when us plebs have to pay for their jollies!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dont you get the feeling Lord Gill is trying it on with these kind of proclamations and then nothing ever happens?

    As you already pointed out Lord Hope said the same thing in 1992 and here we are with new promises of courts on camera.

    Gill trying to rewrite history perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
  18. @28 January 2015 at 23:38

    Clearly the Lord President wishes to control what information flows out of the courtroom therefore this policy of forcing journalists to register with the court is to be the way it plays out in Scotland.

    A similar scheme of registration and approval was put in place for lay assistants ... to ensure the judiciary has control and a say in who can act as a lay assistant in Scotland.

    Do not think of Scottish courts as part of a modern democracy.The courts and the judiciary in Scotland are a law unto themselves, and are willing to go to extreme lengths to preserve their influence, power and secretive wealth.

    @29 January 2015 at 09:25

    A good point ... although it is not surprising the Scottish Government have ceded all authority to Lord Gill in all matters legal.

    The grovelling interaction between Scottish Government departments, civil servants begging for answers to queries or an audience with the judiciary, Judicial Office and others is indicative of how weak ScotGov is on the justice issue.

    @29 January 2015 at 14:07

    More often than not, "History" is written by despots, public figures who are well at it and vested interests ...

    Lord Gill can make all the proclamations he wants and 150 page speeches he wants and fly around the world to meet warmongers but he fell down in his own land at the first hurdle of transparency.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Judges are there to hear cases in court not control the information flowing out of them although you are correct this is exactly what they are doing and you have their intent down to a fine art.In the end it is all about their own pockets - Gill proved that in answer to the register petition.

    Keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  20. “Educating the film company regarding the nature of court proceedings the paramount importance of the interests of justice, and cultivating a relationship of trust with the film company so that the risk of erroneous impressions/misrepresentations, is minimised.”

    Just another way of saying 'keeping the plebs under our thumb and making sure nothing remotely embarrassing is ever revealed'.

    What a con!

    ReplyDelete
  21. How can you tell that Scotland's judiciary are honest?

    Because they tell you they are honest?

    ReplyDelete
  22. More often than not, "History" is written by despots, public figures who are well at it and vested interests ...

    Yes it is and usually written to make sure future generations bow to some ridiculous myth like for instance a bunch of tosspot judges dressed up like they were in the middle ages in 2015!!

    Whoever you are I salute you for your work!

    ReplyDelete
  23. That sentence from the judge who refused to give their name is priceless.

    How exactly does the judge propose to educate the press on what to report or not report from court?

    And presumably if the press do not cooperate access will be denied.

    Not much democracy in these proposals.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Judges and television dont mix - look at parliament coverage on the beeb - it is a turn off until someone like Margaret Hodge comes on and actually gives us some facts while rattling the cages of bankers and the like

    If television entered the courts everyone will see just how big a con the courts really are and how difficult justice is to obtain against the likes of a bank chucking you out of your house or some dodgy landlord on the fiddle (and probably connected in some way to the judge hearing the case!)

    Dont expect Lord Gill and the other dinosaurs to turn into Judge Judy - it wont happen!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Journalists have to register with the court but Gill's faction don't register with anybody? How the hell can this be a transparent justice system. They make and have made decisions affecting members of society with no accountability whatsoever. It is nothing short of a scandal the privilidge and immunity from checks and balances these rotten mendacious crooks enjoy. Keep up the good work DOI you are a credit to us all.

    Journalists have to register with the court. Well journalists can be prosecuted but Judges cannot, bunch of wigged crooks. I mean I could be called for Jury service as anyone else could and there may be a convicted criminal in charge of proceedings. It is shocking indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This is obviously more spin by the judge who threatens to chuck the press out then invites in cameras so long as judges can control it and then presents this as big news and when is he going to trouble himself to go to the Scottish Parliament and tell all about the judges?Never?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Public money pays for courts and judges salaries so public money deserves television and total openness.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Judges are afraid of cameras because the viewers are going to click onto what is really going on in the justice system also what about the lawyers they are going to look and sound like the bunch of bloodsuckers they really are just even more so.

    ReplyDelete
  29. All for cameras in the courts because it will show up some of these waffling QCs for what they are.Supposed experts in their fields but when it comes to the day you need them they sound like complete twits especially when the judge keeps intervening in what is being said and it is so obvious the judge is intervening to support a law firm as was in my own case.

    I will send you the details so you can look into it.

    ReplyDelete

Comments should encourage & promote an acceptable & respectful level of public debate on law & legal issues, the judiciary, courts & justice system.

All comments are subject to moderation. Anonymous comments are enabled.
Abusive or unacceptable comments will not be published.
Comments & links to material may not always be published but will be noted and investigated.

Sourced information, news leaks, or cases with verifiable documentation for investigation should be emailed to blog journalists.