MORTON'S MUSINGS

Getting the picture

AS THE QUESTION OF TELEVISION CAMERAS IN COURTROOMS RETURNS TO THE AGENDA, JAMES MORTON REMEMBERS THAT IN THE RECENT PAST, THE ISSUE OF PUBLICITY WAS SEEN IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT

It is interesting that the Lord Chancellor should be again thinking about television in the courts at a time when there are so many restrictions on the press and so many Contempt of Court Act orders in place.

Indeed, sometimes it seems as though there could be more Crown Court cases which may not be reported than those which may.

It seems it is easier to slap on an order and let things sort themselves out later rather than take the robust attitude and have the argument that the defendant's human rights have been impinged and that he may say he will not receive a fair trial.

It is getting on for 40 years since reporting restrictions in the magistrates' court were imposed, putting an end to the staple diet of the local press - the committal proceedings of naughty schoolmasters in Hull and district nurses with syringes in Devizes - which were recounted in loving detail.

Did the defendants suffer when their cases came to the Quarter Sessions or Assizes? I don't honestly think they did.

I remember one case when the question of prejudice was raised after a trial was reported.

Rather daringly, the appellant claimed that an article in one of the national tabloid newspapers might influence the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Their lordships were dismissive.

It was otiose to think they read, let alone were influenced by, what was in that paper.

Nowadays, that would be given as an example of how out of touch are the middle aged, middle class, white, public school-educated elite.

There cannot have been much more publicity given to defendants than when the Kray twins were convicted of the murders of George Cornell and Jack McVitie.

Nowadays a Contempt of Court Act order would have been in force, probably from the moment of their arrest.

Then it did not matter that there was to be a second trial for the murder of Frank Mitchell.

The judge, Mr Justice Lawton, allowed some questioning of jurors, particularly about their reading of the Daily Mail, and some were stood down.

The jurors were quite capable of deciding the case on its merits.

They were clearly not influenced by what they had read of the pair.

They did not like or sufficiently believe the chief prosecution witness and everyone was acquitted of the murder charge.

That was a case in which the second trial took place a matter of a few weeks after the first.

Not the months which lapse nowadays before the case drags to a hearing.

I suspect that now, in all but the most sensational of cases, the general public will not remember anything of the earlier reporting.

And if they do remember something, will that prejudice them? In my view, a little careful questioning will eliminate those who have formed an opinion.

Should we be deprived of the right to know what goes on in courts? Perhaps someone can mount a claim under the Human Rights Act.

***

Another curious trend which has developed is that of protecting children from publicity and consequently protecting their parents.

Logically, if a prisoner sues for the loss of his pyjamas in the prison laundry he should not be named because his children may suffer.

I have always found it absurd that when a person runs off with a child there is an enormous amount of publicity - photographs, eating habits, favourite television programme - to try to discover their whereabouts.

But the moment they are returned the child can no longer be named.

So on to television.

Presumably the experience of the OJ Simpson murder trial is sufficiently dull in our memories that we have forgotten what a shambles television made of that case.

But there is certainly an argument that non-jury trials could be televised.

The criminal division of the Court of Appeal would make interesting watching - at least for lawyers.

And that really is the problem.

Who is going to watch the resolution of building disputes and discussions of Scott schedules? The answer is, of course, no one.

What we, the public, want are the criminal trials and the really mucky ones, please.

No one is likely to allow those to be shown.

We would all be glued to cases like those of Dr Shipman or Rosemary West.

But watching a small-time burglar from Doncaster is not going to set the public pulse racing.

Anyway there are enough problems with witnesses without allowing them to play to the television cameras.

'Is it not right that if the defendant is convicted you will be signed to appear as King Lear, Mrs Smith?' There will have to be rules devised so that theatrical and film companies are not allowed to approach witnesses.

Do we really need such things?

One thing certain is that if television is allowed the rules regarding court dress should stay.

There are enough problems finding advocates who can speak reasonably well without additionally having to vet them for their dress sense.

James Morton is a former criminal law specialist solicitor and now a freelance journalist