Time to take another look at bringing cameras into court

Ireland's strict ban on courtroom broadcasting stood in stark contrast last year to the images of Oscar Pistorius in the dock of a Johannesburg courtroom, staring down the barrels of dozens of camera lenses. In South Africa, every salacious detail and piece of evidence was broadcast live to the world while here, the Anglo Irish Bank case – arguably one of the most important public interest trials in the history of the State – took place without a camera in sight.

However, given recent developments in other jurisdictions, it may not be long before the first cameras are allowed into courtrooms here, albeit in a much more limited capacity than what was seen in Johannesburg last year. It is understood that backroom discussions are likely to take place this year about setting up an advisory committee and pilot project for the broadcasting of certain proceedings.

The main impetus behind such discussions comes from developments in our nearest jurisdictions. Limited broadcasting of proceedings in the UK is now allowed following the repeal of a 1925 law. Since 2013 broadcasts have been allowed from the Court of Criminal Appeal in both civil and criminal cases.

The reactions have been broadly positive and last year the British Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, welcomed the prospect of expanding broadcasting into criminal trials. "Open justice is about letting the public see justice being done and I can see real benefits of trialling cameras in criminal courts, as long as the right protections and safeguards are in place."

Scotland, which historically operates a different legal system within the UK, is even further along. It has been experimenting with cameras in courts since 1992. In 2013, footage from a Scottish murder trial was even made into a Channel Four television documentary.

Last month, the Courts Service here republished a review of the Scottish system which paves the way for further coverage of court proceedings there.

The Scottish report states that some proceedings, such as appeal court rulings, should be permitted to be broadcast live, while trials may be recorded for delayed broadcast. Crucially, part of the logic for the extension of the scheme is that live reporting of a kind was already happening, with journalists using Twitter to effectively live broadcast trials in text form.

Last year, the Chief Justice, Ms Justice Susan Denham, made a similar comparison in a speech on World Press Freedom day, although she avoided the topic of cameras in the courtroom. "Simply put, tweeting is akin to broadcast as the message is sent with no delay, there is no taking it back and no limits to dissemination."

As anyone following trials online will be aware, Irish journalists regularly live tweet trials. Last year, the court news agency CCC Nuacht went one step further and ran a rolling blog on the Anglo trial, which featured on several major news sites including The Irish Times and RTÉ.

Given our strict rules on such matters, it may surprise many to learn that there is no law banning cameras from courtrooms here. According to a Courts Service spokesman, it is simply a practice that has grown up through the years and has become a de facto standing order. The Courts Service gets dozens of requests each year to broadcast or record in courtrooms and rejects each one on this basis.

A judge could decide tomorrow that their trial may be recorded or put out live on the Six One News, although as the spokesman said, such a decision would be highly unlikely and any change would take place as part of a broader policy shift following a review.

It would not be the first time authorities have looked at the issue. In the early Nineties, two reports from the Law Reform Commission suggested some broadcasting and recording might be allowed with strict conditions attached. Then along came the OJ Simpson murder trial in 1994. Its circus-like coverage dampened down any debate in this jurisdiction on the issue until now.

The arguments on either side of the issue are well rehearsed. In favour is the idea that justice should take place in public and broadcasting proceedings makes for a better informed citizenry.

The bouts of moral outrage which regularly grip some of the commentariat when they hear a court decision they do not like may also take on a different tone if they could see what actually happened in the courtroom.

As for one of the main arguments against court broadcasting, that it would intimidate victims and witnesses, such parties would undoubtedly be protected. In both the English and Scottish systems, filming is only allowed of the judges and lawyers and any Irish system would be sure to follow suit.

Indeed, it is likely that any pilot project would take place in the Supreme Court or in our new Court of Criminal Appeal where the testimony of witnesses and complainants is rarely required.