And so it begins. Cameras will soon be allowed into court, according to justice secretary Ken Clarke, beaming judges’ verdicts into living rooms like a horror version of Jackanory.

Opponents to change will mourn the announcement like Luddites watching the machines start up, raging against the onset of technology but with seemingly no way of stopping it.

Is this the thin end of the wedge? Within five years will we be sitting down to watch Justice Live! presented on Channel 5 by Davina McCall, surrounded by a baying mob waiting outside the court with placards for any suspect found not guilty?

Perhaps there will be a red button for an interactive option, where viewers can vote to increase a sentence for the poor schmuck standing in the dock.

We’ll have a spin-off called Justice Junior, where Ortis Deley can ask the families of murder victims how they feel; or we’ll see high-definition slow-motion replays of a sobbing witness.

Let’s hope not. Or at least let’s hope the planet has self-combusted into a fiery obliteration before the pilot episode.

Indeed for now, this thin end of the wedge is just as likely to dissatisfy the pro-camera camp as it is the technophobes. As ever, the devil is in the detail. Only judges will be broadcast, leaving witnesses, victims and crucially offenders off-screen. Will this satiate the section of the public that craves justice for the miscreants behind the August riots? Will Sky News, such an advocate of reform, be happy just to broadcast judge’s verdicts? My hunch is no.

In practice, what we’ll get is a fractionally more animated version of what already exists - news broadcasts can already screen a picture of the judge alongside his words, only now we can hear their voices. It’s like the releasing of the dulcet tones of Gerry Adams - liberating in theory but nondescript and pointless in reality. Anyone sitting down with the popcorn looking to see criminals thrown into the cells will be sorely disappointed.

Perhaps more interesting is the further announcement that courts will be subject to much greater scrutiny in future (although tellingly, there is no date for this: the impression remains that the mob has told Clarke to jump, but he has little idea how high or when he might land).

We’ll be able to see how many cases have collapsed, and why. We’ll know how long it’s taken to get cases resolved, and how many people have left prison only to re-offend.

Aside from the obvious question of how this information is to be collated and by whom (admin numbers are already stretched in many courts), this seems a positive development.

Delays to court proceedings are only likely to compromise justice, not to mention send costs soaring.

My suspicion is this information will be of less immediate interest than live coverage, although the astounding popularity of the police.uk website, giving figures on crime in particular locations, suggests I may be underestimating the public’s thirst for knowledge.

But despite the limitations of yesterday’s announcement, and the benefits from a more informed public, a lingering feeling of sadness underpins this edging open of the floodgates.

Cameras are now inside the courtroom. Technology has taken another step towards checkmate. Rupert Murdoch has won the argument. Again.