What will be
the impact of televising judges’ sentencing remarks in the Crown Court? Justice
Secretary Robert Buckland and Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett hope
that regular broadcasting will improve public understanding of the justice
system. The BBC, ITN and Sky, who have long campaigned for greater transparency
in the courts say much the same. But there must be serious questions about
whether filming and broadcast from courts will in fact lead to an increased
level of public confidence in the sentencing decisions handed down by judges. Around
70 per cent of the public think sentencing in general is too lenient and while this
perception is often reduced when people are presented with individual cases,
the latest research for the Sentencing Council found that “for
some offences, there may be a public appetite for higher sentences than the
guidelines suggest or legislation allows”.
Critics of the plan include barrister
Clive Stafford Smith, who thinks televising sentencing decisions is a very bad
idea indeed which will impose “political pressure on judges to be harsh on
people populists hate and label ‘criminals’”. I’m concerned that there’ll be a
spike in complaints about unduly lenient sentences and a chilling effect on creative
sentencing which prioritises rehabilitation over punishment. All that could
mean longer sentences and a much-increased prison population. Or will the benefits outweigh the risks?
The Supreme
Court has allowed broadcasting of its proceedings since it was established in 2009
and filming in the Court of Appeal has been possible since 2013 although I can’t
remember seeing much footage of the latter. The government reviewed the
introduction of Appeal Court broadcasting after a year of implementation,
concluding that after some initial problems, it had effectively been embedded
into court practice. The review also raised the issue of whether “the
broadcast material is used in a manner conducive to achieving the policy aims
of improving public access and understanding of court judgements”. This theme
was one to be re-considered as part of a proposed test in the Crown Court which
was undertaken three years later.
In 2016, the
government launched that test of the practical and technical challenges of
filming in the Crown Court. In Parliament, “support
was expressed for an extension to court broadcasting if it led to increased
public understanding of the court system and greater transparency of court
judgements”. But how do we know if
it has achieved these worthy aims?
An
Impact Assessment prepared in 2016 before Parliament approved the test filming
in the Crown Court said that “following the end of the test period, a further
Impact Assessment will be prepared to support the final decision as to whether
to allow Court Broadcasting of sentencing remarks from the Crown Court”. But the
Statutory Instrument (SI) laid before Parliament last week which would make
that final decision has no Impact Assessment attached to it. One has not been prepared “as no significant impact
on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen”.
Before
approving the SI, MPs and Peers must ask some serious questions about what is
known about experience so far- and indeed in other jurisdictions where filming
is allowed. The government have
acknowledged that their policy aims would not be met if the media selected
cases for public interest value or excitement, rather than with the aim of
promoting understanding. Risks have also been raised by government that “televising
our courts may open the judicial process to
sensationalism and trivialise serious processes to a level of media
entertainment”. How do they propose
to prevent this happening?
The government
claims that televising hearings is part of their wider court reform and
digitalisation programme, “using
technology and modern ways of working to increase access to justice for people
up and down the country”. But, to coin a phrase, they
would, wouldn’t they?
No comments:
Post a Comment