| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Hogg : The hon. Gentleman will remember that we debated precisely this issue yesterday. Our position has been consistent throughout --that our war objectives are to ensure a complete and unconditional compliance with relevant Security Council resolutions.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Gedling) : While any positive sign of change from Baghdad is to be welcomed, is it not clear that the Iraqi regime is speaking with two distinct and different voices at this time? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that there is no justification whatever for changing the coalition strategy before we have incontrovertible evidence that all the United Nations resolutions are being implemented in full by Iraq?
Mr. Hogg : I agree with both elements of my hon. Friend's question.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : Will the Minister take this opportunity of putting on record the thanks of many people for the efforts of President Gorbachev and the Soviet Foreign Ministry in at least attempting to keep the hope of peace alive when there has been markedly less effort by the British and United States Governments in pursuing a peaceful solution to the conflict?
Will the Minister tell us what are the war aims of the British and American Governments? Do they intend to move the troops on into Iraq? Do they intend to maintain a permanent base within that region? Are they interested in getting peace and grasping an opportunity that is available to us now or do they think that the land war has a momentum of its own? Does the Minister expect the carnage to start this weekend or does he intend to spend the weekend working for a peaceful solution to this awful conflict before any more lives are lost?
Mr. Hogg : I invite the hon. Gentleman to read what I said yesterday in the House about war aims. I dealt precisely with the questions that he has been good enough
Column 577
to put to me now. On the first part of his question, the activities of the Soviet Government have given Saddam Hussein yet another opportunity to comply fully and absolutely with Security Council resolutions. We are pleased and grateful that such an opportunity should have been presented.Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : Should not we remember the Low cartoon in the Evening Standard in 1936, which showed the whole of the League of Nations cowering in a corner in front of Hitler, and what followed three years after that? Is not it clear that Saddam Hussein is morally wrong, a military loser and internationally required to do the opposite of what he said in his broadcast yesterday? While listening to what the Russians and others have to say, let us remember what the man himself said only yesterday.
Mr. Hogg : I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important to remember the kind of man with whom we are dealing. He uses war as an instrument of policy. He is by instinct and by practice a killer.
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : Which of the eight points of the peace plan are, in the words of the Prime Minister, "not good enough"? The Prime Minister said that despite the fact that, seemingly, he had not seen the text of the proposals. If the text is available, will there be a chance for a statement to be made in the House before we adjourn for the weekend?
Mr. Hogg : As I have already said, we have not had a full text of the proposals. Nor have we had an opportunity fully to consult all our coalition partners, including the Arab states. That being so, it is inappropriate for me to seek to expand on what I have already said.
Point of Order
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today, British Steel announced the closure of the Ravenscraig blast furnace and 1,000 redundancies, while a Select Committee of the House is studying the matter and, apparently, preparing a report which is highly critical of British Steel's management. Does not that amount to a contempt of that Committee and of the House? Are we not entitled to a statement today from the Secretary of State for Scotland to explain what he will do about these acts of industrial vandalism and the scorched earth policy that British Steel is pursuing in Scotland?
Mr. Speaker : I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard by the Leader of the House, who is present. I do not know anything about that matter.
Column 578
Courts (Research) Bill
Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
11.37 am
Mr. Lawrence : With these weighty, serious and momentous matters of the Gulf weighing with us, it may sound irrelevant to continue the debate on which we are engaged, but the show must go on and so must my speech, although I hope for not much longer.
I was dealing with the point about the exercise of tight control over the experiments. Great reliance cannot be put on judges spending time controlling television in their courts. Judges must make sure that justice is done in the case before them. If it is a serious criminal case which is attracting public attention, that is all the more reason why the judge should concentrate all his attention on the process of the court and the debate whether the accused is guilty or innocent. He is likely to say, "It is not my job to exercise control over television companies. My job is to conduct the trial, which is not a public entertainment. The most sensible path that I can follow is to have no truck with it. I exclude television." Where would the television company be in that situation?
Let us suppose that the judge allowed television in and there came a point in the trial when he found it necessary to exclude television. Would trials be held up while television companies made representations, in open court and perhaps with counsel, on the reasons why they should not be excluded? When we last discussed anything like this Bill the same question arose. In debating the Contempt of Court Act 1981, as it now is, we discussed the way in which, under section 4, the judge can exclude the press at an appropriate moment.
That causes an enormous amount of ill feeling among media representatives, who feel that they have a right to be there and that the public should know what is going on behind closed doors. Representations are made, publicly and privately, and it is all a waste of time. The amount of time wasted would be even greater if the television companies were for ever pressing not to be excluded from a court of law because the judge was exercising control.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmore Port and Neston argues, on clause 2 and research into the jury system, that the system is so important a part of our legal process that we should examine it with care to see whether it is efficient, can be improved and whether we can present our arguments better. He says that everyone should be able to become acquainted with the way in which our system works, that people should be educated in the subject, that such closeness will make the public heart grow fonder and increase public confidence in the jury system and that opening up juries to the scrutiny of the public will make juries more accountable to the community. Those are desirable aims, but there are two main flaws in the argument. First, jury research would not necessarily achieve those ends and, secondly, more harm than good might be done to the system. Consider, first, public confidence. Juries are not necessarily rational bodies. The law says, for example, "You must convict if you are satisfied that the accused committed the crime." But a jury may say, "Why should we convict this man? We think that he has suffered enough. We do not agree with this law" or,
Column 579
"We do not think that his breach of the law in the circumstances is important enough for him to run the risk of prison."I am not sure that it is desirable for the jury to be made into a more rational and more efficient machine, because, at the end of the day, the jury protects the individual accused against the oppression of the system. However benign, tolerant and modern the system may be, at the end of the day what cushions the system and its machinery from the impact on the individual accused is the jury. Although it is irrational, we would gain nothing by inquiring into its irrationality.
Every case is different, every crime is committed in different circumstances, at different times, at different places, with different effects and with different defendants manifesting different characteristics. I am not sure that it would be sensible to generalise research in an area which is so manifestly disparate and diverse.
What harm can be done by such research? I do not want the confidentiality of the jury room broken into. Harm would be done. I do not want juries to be questioned by journalists and others about their decisions. Although that is not suggested, it would not be long before it happened, and once the principle of not questioning jury men was broken down, such questioning would be done by professors, lecturers at university and others. I do not want jurors to refuse to do jury service because they are terrified of being questioned about their decisions or because they fear having to give reasons for their decisions.
I do not want the pressure on the jury man to be greater because of his fear that he might be questioned. Sitting there in the jury box, he should not have to think, "I may be asked afterwards by a professor, a journalist, a lecturer or some other intelligent person why I made my decision, and I may not be sure why I made it. I am just a jury man and it is my feeling. I have given my response and I believe that my decision is right, having arrived at it in that way."
I do not see how control over research or the way in which a researcher would operate can be easy. I do not believe that public confidence in the jury system would grow with research, and that is the rub. Those who do not want the jury system to endure want this research. When my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston says, "Let us lift the veil on the jury system," he really means something else.
Mr. Lawrence : Many of his supporters actually mean, "Let us reveal to the public sight how inadequate, inefficient, wrong and irrational is our jury system. We shall be so shocked by what we find that the system will collapse."
Mr. Arbuthnot : Does my hon. and learned Friend know the position of the Bar in this matter? Does the Bar want to continue its support of jury trials, even if research under the Bill shows that a jury trial is a silly way to decide things, or does it want to continue jury trials only for a short time, until research shows the position one way or another? Alternatively, does he believe that the Bar is signalling to the House that it would like to see the end of jury trials?
Column 580
Mr. Lawrence : I am not the Bar, even though I am the chairman of the all-party joint parliamentary committee of barristers. I believe that there is a division of opinion at the Bar on this issue. Those who advocate and have been supporting, even encouraging, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston to pilot the Bill--I hope that Mr. Caplan will not object to my saying this--have said clearly that they want the jury system to remain. I do not believe that the system would necessarily remain if we conducted research into the intricate ways in which the jury system works and that would be a deplorable development for the British system of justice. Many people do not want the jury system to remain. I particularly recall the attempts made in the Roskill report to get rid of the system for long fraud trials. If the system went, judges would judge trials. Many people say, "If we had real judges with real experience, real common sense and real knowledge and application of the law trying criminal trials, fewer of the guilty would get off." The danger is that the judges are not always right. After many years of service in our courts, I would rather have a jury than judges deciding criminal trials. The jury is the protector of the person who is falsely accused. The jury protects the civil liberties and freedoms of the individual in a way that even our judges cannot do. I do not want anything to happen that threatens the existence of the jury trial. I say frankly and openly that those who would pursue research of the jury system would be precisely, perhaps unintentionally, undermining the jury system.
We are told that the United States and other countries use television and research, and have welcomed both. I am not sure that it is possible to make comparisons in this regard, but it is worth pointing out that some of those countries possess entirely different legal systems and rules. It is possible that, in the case of an inquisitorial system that is bent on discovering the whole truth, rather than an accusatorial system such as ours, there is less objection to the exerting of outside influence on criminal trials. That does not apply to our accusatorial system.
In our criminal courts, an allegation must be proved, or the prosecution fails. Our system discovers the truth, but it does not necessarily discover all of it. Under it, rules of evidence protect the accused in a way in which more open systems do not. Perhaps it is time to change our system. I could go on for hours about the pros and cons ; what I know is that we should not be impelled to change it by introducing either television or intrusive research. The system cannot be changed overnight : a decade of work would be needed. The effects of television and research might be very different in an accusatorial system, given the influence that it might have on the participants in a trial, especially the jury. The comparison can best be made with the United States. I do not want to offend any of my hundreds of American friends, many of whom are attorneys, but I would not wish to exchange our system for theirs.
Of course, my observations do not apply to many civil cases. America has jury trials in civil cases ; we do not. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston may say that I have made quite a good case for the exclusion of television and research from criminal trials, but that television could prove useful and educational in the civil or appeal courts. I agree : if none of my criticisms and objections apply, there is certainly no reason to oppose such a move. Let us be realistic, however. How much public appeal would there be in televising legal
Column 581
arguments in the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords about, for instance, the interpretation of taxation subclauses in financial legislation? How enraptured would the public be by the sight of the Lord Chief Justice considering to what extent the word "wilfully" implies malice?Those are not the kind of trials to which the television companies would want to commit massive financial investment. What they want are precisely the kind of trials that my hon. Friend wishes to exclude.
Dr. Woodcock : These seem strange arguments, coming from a man who makes his living by the law. My hon. and learned Friend is saying, essentially, that evidence ought to be excluded ; he is not allowing for the same trial of evidence that he seeks for the clients whom he represents in the courtroom.
In regard to jury research, is my hon. and learned Friend saying that he believes that our jury system is so perfect that it is incapable of improvement, or is he saying that, although it may be capable of improvement, he does not wish to know its shortcomings, because he would not want to improve it even if he did know them?
Mr. Lawrence : I think that it would be dangerous to try to improve the jury system. To examine the working of the system, and to try to make it more efficient and rational, is actually to destroy the essence of that system, which is not necessarily either efficient or rational.
I know that my hon. Friend is a magistrate and has probably presided over criminal trials for many years, but criminal trials at that level are different from those that involve juries. I am not taken in by juries--I do not consider the jury system perfect--but I feel that if we tamper with it too much, there will be pressure for its removal. That would be the most retrograde step that we could possibly take if we want to ensure that justice is done in our criminal trials.
Dr. Woodcock rose --
Mr. Lawrence : I must finish my speech : I do not want to stop others from speaking.
Who wants the Bill? Where is the pressure for it? Until it was presented, and until I read the arguments of the Bar Council, I observed no agitation in favour of television--or even research into the working of juries, except on the part of a handful of academics. I may be accused of being an old reactionary backwoodsman for resisting this great advance, although I do not see myself as such, but I am astonished that my own trade union, the Bar Council, should push for it.
This old institution of our courts and legal system, and protector of the interests of the Bar, seems suddenly to want to be modern. It is mutton dressed as lamb : it wants to change its image, like a trendy vicar. I am not sure that much is achieved by trendy vicars, women who dress up as lamb when they are really mutton and others who try too hard to be modern when they are part of an established tradition--pillars of the community, perhaps rather
old-fashioned--except incredulity among many of their supporters, such as myself.
Perhaps I am letting my trade union down ; perhaps I ought to be for the Bill. It would undoubtedly be very good for the Bar : there would be a great deal of publicity, and
Column 582
many people would make themselves famous overnight. It would be excellent for business--which means that much more money might go into the pockets of the barristers.Yes : let us have the Bill. It will be good for the lawyers. That ought to kill it.
11.58 am
Mr. Humfrey Malins (Croydon, North-West) : First, let me declare an interest, as a solicitor and assistant recorder.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Woodcock) on his excellent introduction of the Bill. He spoke capably and persuasively. I shall not speak for too long, because I know that others wish to speak as well.
It is an impressive experience to look around the Chamber on a Friday and see so many hon. Members who are keeping an open mind and who are here to listen to the arguments. It is to the many who are still uncertain about which view to take that I address my speech and I hope very much that they will agree that this modest measure should be given its Second Reading today and should proceed further. The Bill is modest. It aims to establish a pilot project on important issues that must be discussed. If it is given a Second Reading, it will not mean that television will be in the courts. We want to proceed gently and gingerly with a pilot project. If, when the evidence is available--this point was made tellingly by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston--we decide that it is right to proceed no further, we are at liberty to take that decision. It is not an easy subject and differing views are held on it. Members of the Bar Council and of the Bar are not unanimous.
Initially, I was hostile to televising the House, because I thought that it would trivialise and lower the quality of everything we do and that right- thinking people outside would not thank us for agreeing to it. I believed that the great orators among us would become stage stars, while the duller ones such as myself would sink into further obscurity and that it would be biased against the ordinary dull chap.
I was wrong to vote against televising the House, but it has taken me some months to reach that conclusion. I held the natural fears that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) expressed, but they were unfounded. Television has enhanced our reputation in the outside world and has helped to educate people about how Parliament works. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, 70 per cent. of British people get most of their information from the television.
Mr. Summerson : My hon. Friend said that televising the House had educated the public. Does he think that, because they see what goes on in the Chamber, they know more about the arcane and extraordinary procedures by which this place works?
Mr. Malins : My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I do not know more whether the public know much more about the procedures of this place than my hon. Friend or I. It is helpful and good in a democracy for people to form a view on national issues such as the Gulf crisis. Without television, they might not form a view. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton argued that televising the courts is unnecessary because
Column 583
they are open to the public. Televising the House has enabled millions of people to see Parliament at work--an opportunity which they would not have but for television. They cannot afford Hansard or to travel to Westminster every day. Televising the House has enabled housebound, poor and disabled people to see the House at work.Mr. Andrew Mitchell : I agree with much of my hon. Friend's speech, but will he address the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) about the intrinsic difference between the televising of this place, where we perform as volunteers, and the courts, where people do not so perform and where 50 per cent. of those who plead guilty are declared by the courts to be entirely innocent?
Mr. Malins : I accept that there is a difference between the courts and the House, but, equally, there are similarities, because many of the fears expressed about a pilot project in the courts were strongly expressed about televising the House. Many of the arguments that overcame the fears expressed about televising this place will apply to some of the fears that my hon. Friend mentioned.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton asked how we could guarantee that courts would not become a media circus. He said that television was a form of entertainment and that courts would become a media circus. He is saying, in so many words, that the courts would be trivialised, but there is a powerful argument against that. Television does not change into a circus something that is not already a circus. It does not change the House, wonderful religious services or a sombre, serious issue into a circus. If something already is a circus, television shows it as such.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton spoke of witnesses not wanting their private lives to be exposed to millions. That is a strong point. However, in major trials, the names of witnesses and much of their evidence is revealed to the public by the press or by television reporters. They are not anonymous.
Mr. Lawrence : It is a question of degree. Although 1.2 million people may buy the Daily Telegraph, of which a small proportion read the report of a trial, millions of people will see a witness on television.
Mr. Malins : It is a question of degree, but the more famous the trial, the more widely covered is the witness's name and evidence.
Mr. Evennett : My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is quite wrong. He mentioned a newspaper that responsibly reports major trials, but he did not allude to the millions who watch the news on television or read it in other daily newspapers which have a larger circulation and which trivialise those major court cases. Does he agree that witnesses in such trials are not anonymous, because they appear on "News at Ten" or in the mass media?
Mr. Malins : My hon. Friend makes a telling point, and I agree with him wholeheartedly--as he would expect me to.
We know the names of witnesses in famous trials. A girl called Monica was involved in the Jeffrey Archer trial. Her
Column 584
name is imprinted on my mind because I read it, and her evidence, daily for weeks. Important cases already attract publicity, but trivial cases would not be televised.Mr. Arbuthnot : I do not want to speak for my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), but his argument was not about the extra number of people who watch television, but about the fact that a picture is worth a thousand words. The vividness of the visual image is imprinted on one's mind far more deeply than what one reads and forgets so much more quickly.
Mr. Malins : This is a difficult area and I respect the fact that there are opposing views on it. Under our present system, however, witnesses and defendants are pictured in the low-quality tabloids. Those papers provide great details of all sorts of people involved in court cases. They provide their names, the evidence they gave and their pictures, and those facts are brought home to millions of people who take those tabloids. I sincerely believe that the worries that my hon. Friends have expressed about more publicity for witnesses and defendants should not stop them allowing the Bill to proceed today.
I have read the report of the working party of the public affairs committee of the General Council of the Bar. I congratulate Jonathan Caplan and my old friends Michael Kalisher and Anthony Speaight on a good report, which has meant that we are able to discuss the matter today.
Let me outline why I believe the Bill should be passed. I do not believe that the legal system and lawyers suffer from too much popularity in certain sectors of our society in 1991. Some people have a lack of confidence in the legal system, but we have a good one, so why keep it private? We have nothing to hide and we should let some of that system be seen by the public. Televising might enhance the public's confidence in, and respect for, the law.
Pilot projects for televising the courts would help to reinforce our long tradition of open justice. We always criticise secret trials and ask why the public cannot be told what is going on. If the Bill is passed, more publicity will be given to our legal system and the public's ability to know what is going on will be greatly increased. The Bill will enable many people to have a better understanding of how our court system works and some of the burdens borne by leading counsel such as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton. Imagine the prospect of a trial at the Old Bailey with my hon. and learned Friend on his feet eloquently addressing the jury, only to hear the Division bell going at 3.45. Imagine him rushing back to the House--to be seen on television once again.
I do not believe that televising the courts would trivialise them. Such coverage would inform and educate. I do not believe that it would lead to frightened witnesses and related problems. I believe that that coverage would lead to a greater interest in our legal system. A famous foreign court showed a judgment relating to Sunday trading on television--an issue of great national interest--and it was seen by many.
Many of our important civil cases could be televised in part with some advantage. It is vital that there are safeguards to ensure that the jury are not identified, but such issues could be debated later. Today we are considering the main principles behind the Bill. I understand what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton said about jury research, but anything
Column 585
we can do to help jurors in their task should be considered. We could ask jurors the simple question : "Is there any way in which you could be helped further?" Perhaps jurors would suggest that there were, so we should give further consideration to such research. I support the Bill and I hope that it is passed so that we can continue discussions on this important matter of national significance.12.14 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock) on his good fortune in winning a high place in the ballot for private Members' Bills, and on his choice of Bill. Today gives us a valuable opportunity to debate in some considerable detail two significant proposals for change in relation to the operation of our judicial system, in particular our criminal justice system.
It is already clear from the debate so far that this subject gives rise to lively and wide-ranging considerations. It is clear that the House has in mind the importance of the issues raised by the Bill. There are arguments both ways and I see my function and duty to the House being to draw to its attention some of the potential advantages of the proposals that have been so eloquently advanced by my hon. Friend, as well as the difficult aspects that must properly be taken into account before we arrive at any decision on the principle of the Bill.
This is not a debate in which the House is likely to be divided on party political lines, but I know that hon. Members will want to reflect carefully how to proceed. My hon. Friend is supported by sponsors on both sides of the House. It is a matter of regret for the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) that he does not have the benefit of some eloquent sponsors on the Opposition Benches who could take part in the debate. However, they are extremely well represented by the hon. Gentleman and, in so far as the Labour party takes any particular view on this matter, we look forward with great interest to hear what the hon. Gentleman says, should he catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Opinions on this matter vary considerably and the Government's stance is to listen extremely carefully with an open mind to the views expressed by hon. Members.
The first part of the Bill deals with televising court proceedings. It seeks to implement the findings of a working party of the public affairs committee of the General Council of the Bar, on which I had the honour to sit for some years, which reported in May 1989. That report is often referred to as the Caplan report, after Jonathan Caplan who chaired the committee.
The present law is to be found in section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925, which, in essence, was enacted to prohibit still photography. It is interesting to contemplate that it was in 1912 that a still photograph appeared of a small figure, the murderer, Frederick Seddon, being sentenced to death by Mr. Justice Bucknill. That photograph showed the spread of the court--Mr. Justice Bucknill, with his black cap, and his chaplain at his side. That photograph caused a frisson of horror at the time and it was specifically referred to 13 years later in 1925, when the prohibition of photography in court was passed into law.
It seems strange to us today that feelings ran so high just about a photograph, but they did, and that aspect of
Column 586
the law remains unchanged. Today's debate has already demonstrated that, although the medium that causes anxiety has changed, the power of the visual image and the power of sound recording in modern form are still recognised as so great as to make us cautious about their use.It is difficult today to imagine a world without television, which is now such an important part of our lives, but in 1925 broadcasting even in sound form--"This is London 2LO"--had not even begun. It began in 1926, while television was still some 12 years away.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston that it is significant that this is the first time that the question of television in our courts has been debated. It would not be right to go further on this matter without recording the gratitude of the House for the work done by the working party of the Bar whose analysis of the problems and issues and whose proposed solutions provide a lucid and useful basis for our consideration of these issues. I have read the entire report. It is a careful and well-considered report, which justifies close consideration by anyone interested in this subject, and I shall draw upon it in my speech. In essence, the report recommended the setting up of an advisory committee to review the arrangements for, and legal provisions relating to, coverage of court proceedings by the media--television, radio, newspapers and still photography--and to report to the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary. At this stage, in a sense, the Bill goes a little bit wider even than the report. It removes the statutory restrictions that prevent photography--still, on film or on tape--and removes the statutory limitations on tape recording, provided that those are carried out in accordance with rules of court. That is right. If we are to consider the matter sensibly, we must tackle all those problems. If the House is minded to wish the Bill to make further progress, a number of fairly fundamental changes to its terms are likely to be necessary.
The bar Council has unanimously endorsed the Caplan report's recommendation for an advisory committee and its ability to devise and monitor pilot projects involving research and the actual broadcasting of civil and criminal trials and of appellate proceedings.
In considering the arguments for and against this part of the Bill, I recognise that a proposal to televise the courts--albeit on an experimental basis in the first instance--has several potentially valuable features. It is a fundamental principle of our judicial system, and one of which we are rightly proud, that justice should be open and should be seen to be done. The requirement that court hearings should be in public is departed from only in rare and closely defined circumstances, and only for compelling reasons. On the basis that courts are public places to which anyone can go and places whose proceedings can be openly and fairly reported in print by newspapers, books, magazines and so on, there is in a sense a prime facie case that balanced and fair television reporting should also be considered. Television broadcasting--which is by far the most powerful and dramatic way of reporting--would, in principle, enable a wide public to see the process of justice as it is administered in the sort of detail and with an immediacy that other forms of news presentation cannot match. It is argued that members of the public would gain from an ability to see the parties and witnesses and to
Column 587
study judges, advocates and jurors at work, thus gaining a better understanding of the workings of our courts and our system of civil and criminal justice.The Bar's report sets out to examine the experience in some of those jurisdictions where television cameras are permitted in court at present. The report concluded that the experience in most cases was favourable. It observed that none of those states in the United States that have had an experimental programme of televising courts have later gone on to prohibit cameras. However, the House will wish to know that, in fact, there are not many countries in which courts have been televised--my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston made that point fairly--and in those countries where it is permitted, only limited use is made of the facility.
The major experiences is in 45 American states, where television is permitted on either a permanent or an experimental basis. It is noteworthy --the House should bear this in mind--that television is exclusive to the state courts and has not yet been admitted to the federal courts in any way. The United States has a formidable system of federal courts, which are highly respected throughout the world, but the United States has not seen fit to admit television to such courts, despite the experience of the state courts ; nor has the Supreme Court been prepared to admit it.
The Bar's report notes that an experimental programme authorised by the Supreme Court of Florida--this is probably the high water mark of the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston--showed that
"the presence of the camera had little effect upon the dignity of the proceedings ; the presence of the camera disrupted the trial either not at all or only slightly ; participants' awareness of the camera averaged between slightly and moderately ; both jurors and witnesses perceived that the presence of the camera made them feel just slightly more responsible for their actions ; the ability of jurors to judge the truthfulness of witnesses was perceived to be affected not at all ; the distracting effect of the camera was deemed to range from almost not at all for jurors, to slightly for witnesses and attorneys ; there was no significant difference in the participants' concern over being harmed as a result of their appearance on television as opposed to their names appearing the print media ; and court personnel and attorneys perceived that presence of the camera made the participating attorneys' actions more flamboyant only to a slight extent".
On the latter point, I have my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) very much in mind. The report refers to a number of other experimental projects, which produced similarly benign findings.
All that might seem to make a significant case. I am considering it carefully. As I said at the beginning, it is important to put those arguments into perspective and to allude to several arguments that range against the proposal.
In considering that perspective, I should like to say a little more about those countries where this matter has or has not been considered. Looking down the Bar's list of 24 countries, one can see that television plays a part in only 10. I shall refer first to those countries that are generally against it. In Austria, there is no law against it, but there is judicial discouragement and it has not happened. In Cyprus, there is no law against it and no experience of it. In Denmark, it is totally forbidden. Finland, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Portugal,
Column 588
Switzerland and Turkey have no experience of it. In Sweden, it is entirely prohibited, although sound recordings are permitted. In Germany, it is prohibited by the constitution.In considering the countries that have some experience of televising the courts, with the exception of the United States, it is important to note how cautious they have been. I put Canada at the forefront because, when the Bar debated this matter at last year's Bar conference, it did so together with the Canadian Bar. The Canadian experience was both path- finding and extremely cautious. In Canada, television has not been allowed beyond the hallway of court buildings. In 1987, just a couple of years ahead of our Bar, a committee of the Canadian Bar recommended a two-year trial period--a similar recommendation came from the Canadian Law Commission--but that was narrowly vetoed by the Canadian Judicial Council, which comprises the chief justices of Canada and of the Canadian provinces. It has not made progress in Canada yet.
In France in 1984, a commission suggested a two-year experiment, but it has not been implemented except in relation to the national historic archives. There is public access to what has been filmed and recorded after 20 years, and it can be publicly broadcast after 50 years. In Israel, television cameras were allowed into two celebrated and unusual trials--the Eichmann and Demanjuk trials. In Italy, there is no law on the matter, but judges are extremely cautious and have allowed television only into the opening and closing stages of one or two important trials.
In the Netherlands, there is little experience. Television has been allowed to film only from behind in the verdicts in some modern trials and, rather more widely, in the unusual Menten trial about the Nazi collaborator. In Norway, there has been some televising of cases of public importance for educational purposes. I said that I would put the matter into perspective. Other countries are thinking about televising, but they are approaching it cautiously and we are right to approach the matter in that spirit.
In that spirit, the House will wish to pay special heed to the views of our judiciary and especially to those of our senior judiciary. Like their counterparts in other member states of the European Community, our senior judiciary have serious reservations about the televising of court proceedings. It will be recognised that they have an unparalleled knowledge of the workings of our legal system and I know that their views will weigh heavily with the House.
Despite the reported American experience, many commentators--judges, lawyers and lay people here--fear that the presence of cameras would add considerably to the pressures faced by participants in a trial. It is an inevitable feature of trials--not only of criminal trials--that many participants--not only the defendant--are brought unwillingly to court in circumstances of great vulnerability or personal distress. There is a great difference between appearing in court, even before a packed public gallery, and appearing before a television camera with the knowledge that, later in the day, one may be exposed to a television audience of millions or perhaps even of tens of millions.
The effects of television cameras may vary. They may cause an inhibited witness to clam up entirely or at least to face considerable additional personal distress. They may
| Next Section
| Home Page |