There is no doubt that the Oscar Pistorius court case is momentous news at the moment. In the era of 24 hour rolling news channels, it is not a surprise to see an event like this jumped on by so many within the media. However, there has been a surprise with the way that Sky Sports News has gotten involved with the coverage of the event. Clearly the court case is involving a high profile sportsman and the channel is likely splitting footage with Sky News, making it simple for Sky to fill time on two channels, but even with this in mind, it has been quite a shock to see the way that the footage has been used do widely.
Of course, a large part of the reason for this is the fact that allowing TV cameras into a court is so far removed from the current state of affairs in the United Kingdom. While many countries around the world have embraced technology to allow the public to see notable cases to unfold, Britain and its highly regarded justice system have remained apart from these issues. For some people, this has been a hugely positive thing to do, preventing complicated cases and high profile events from being turned into a side show or even a clown court. However, there is a growing number of people, including some MPs who are questioning whether allowing TV cameras into courts would be such a dreadful thing. It is not as though this change is going to occur any time soon, but it may be that there is room to debate whether there would be a benefit from introducing this style of set-up for some British court cases.
David Lammy is the Labour MP for Tottenham, and he has recently shared his thoughts on the benefits that could come from allowing TV cameras into courts for high profile cases in the United Kingdom.
Lammy focused his thoughts, not on the Oscar Pistorious case but on the phone hacking cases that has been taking place at the Old Bailey. This case is likely to have a massive impact on people all across the country, and you could argue that it will even impact on the democracy in the United Kingdom. In this regard, is it right that the discussion and debate is allowed to be brought to the public through the media. After all, it is elements of the media that is on trial here and yet people are only gaining access to the debate and discussion second hand. While the media would still be required to broadcast the footage that is presented to people if they were showing live footage, people would be able to make up their own mind on what is being discussed without media spin being placed on it. At the moment, the topics being debated in the trial can be spun by parties who have a reason to spin the content in their favour or against a particular rival. This can make it difficult for people to learn the truth about what is going on in the trial. This is where the introduction of TV cameras into trials could help to provide people with a clearer understanding of what is going and without any corporation twisting words and findings to their benefit.
While many courts have an open section where the public can gain entry if there is an element of interest in the case, these spaces are usually filled by journalists or people with a strong vested interest. Activists and journalist will often have the time to attend these sessions over an elongated period.
There is certainly an argument that transparency is crucial, and it may be that transparency will slowly catch up with the courts. It managed to catch up with the House of Commons, and there is a slow, yet steady, move to more information being made available to the general public. With Freedom of Information providing a greater distribution of facts and knowledge, there is less to be said for keeping people in the dark over significant events.
There are still strong reasons why TV cameras are kept from the court room, but in certain cases, there are fewer reasons to oppose their appearance. Who knows, perhaps the UK will head in the same direction that many other countries around the world have moved?
Andrew Reilly is a freelance writer with a focus on news stories and personal injury and law articles. He has been writing professional for 8 years but has been writing for as long as he can care to remember.When Andrew isn't sat behind a laptop or researching a story, he will be found watching a gig or a game of football.
