The government’s plan to overturn the ban on cameras in the courtroom was broadly (if sometimes cautiously) welcomed, but it is problematic. It is unfortunate that the proposal, as well as recent broadcaster lobbying, is remiss in ignoring research into its effects, surely a necessary component of any such experiment. That research also needs to begin before cameras are introduced.

Concerns remain in terms of possible adverse effects. Equally, there are mooted benefits. How will we know either set of effects exists, or will come to pass?

Obviously research is an issue. Much will also depend on the particular form of television courtroom broadcasting being proposed (namely, sentencing decisions and possible appeal decisions) and the associated rules and regulations.

There appears to be a general assumption in official circles that all television courtroom broadcasting will be educational, informative and will enhance public confidence in justice.

The first US television courtroom broadcast occurred in 1953. Yet only about 20 empirical studies have been conducted since into its effects. Whatever the results of these studies, this is far too limited a body of research on which to base decisions and policies. Indeed, the US Supreme Court called for more research; and there appears to be no UK empirical effects research at all.

There are some useful points to consider nevertheless.

A study in New Zealand found most judges were distracted by television cameras. It also found 58% of the public were less willing to testify as witnesses if their testimony were to be broadcast. And two-thirds of the public felt the broadcasting experiment was not educational.

The issue of education was also referred to in a New York experiment, yet no educational effects were shown to accrue.

Researcher William Petkanas found that confidence in the justice system did not increase as a result of television courtroom broadcasting. Another, Kermit Netteburg, did not find any educational effect, nor any enhancement of knowledge about court procedures.

Steven Kohm found that television courtroom broadcasting was used for entertainment programming; as did C. Danielle Vinson and John S. Ertter. Theresa Keller found that television courtroom broadcasting did not increase the number of legal and court stories broadcast. Roberta Enter found that the courtroom broadcasting she examined was biased and presented the defendant unfairly. Entertainment and excitement were emphasised instead.

The first US federal pilot experiment found most courtroom footage was dubbed over. Audio from inside the court was not used. Courtroom footage was mostly used as short snippets.

One study found the average length of stories to be 215 seconds, of which 78 seconds (36%) was in-court footage, and 47 seconds (22%) in-court audio. The first federal pilot experiment found the average courtroom footage per story to be 56 seconds. Three-quarters of stories did not explain what transpired in the day’s proceedings. ‘The stories did not provide a high level of detail about the legal process… [and] increasing the proportion of courtroom footage used in a story did not significantly increase the information given about the legal process… the coverage did a poor job of providing information to viewers about the legal process,’ it concluded.

Pogorzelski and Brewer pointed out that almost two thirds of footage was out-of-court footage (presenter or expert comment, for example).

In short then, there is no conclusive evidence that the government’s plans will meet their stated goals. Research conducted to date does not demonstrate that the goals of education, increased confidence or enhanced information are achieved.

References

Johnson, M.T., and Krafka, C., Pilot Program Involving Electronic Coverage in Six US  District Courts and Two Appeal Courts, (Federal Judicial Centre, 1994);New York State Committee to Review Audio-Visual Coverage of Court Proceedings, An Open Courtroom: Cameras in New York Courts, (New York: Fordham University Press, 1997);Netterburg, Kermit Lyol, Cameras in the Courtroom: Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words?, Ph.D, (University of Minnesota, 1980);Petkanas, William, Cameras on Trial: An Assessment of the Educational Affect of News Cameras in Trial Courts, Ph.D, (New York University, 1990);Keller, Theresa D., Cameras in Courtrooms: An Analysis of Television Court Coverage in Virginia, Ph.D, (University of Tennessee, 1992);Enter, Roberta, The Image of the Judiciary: A Semiotic Analyse of Broadcast Trials to Ascertain its Definition of the Court System, Ph.D, (New York University, 1993);Kohm, Steven Arthur, I’m Not a Judge But I Play One On TV: American Reality Based Courtroom Television, Ph.D, (Simon Fraser University, 2004);Pogorzelski, W., and Brewer, T.W., "Cameras in Court, How Television News Media Use Courtroom Footage," Judicature, (November-December 2007)(91), 125;Vinson, C.D., and Ertter, J.S., "Entertainment or Education, How Do Media Cover the Courts?," Press/Politics, (2002)(7:4), 80.

Paul Lambert is a lecturer in law at the National University of Ireland, Galway and an Irish-qualified solicitor at Merrion Legal Solicitors. He is the author of the forthcoming book Courting Publicity: Twitter and Television Cameras in Court (Bloomsbury).