Lights, camera, action?

Courtroom artists may not be on the verge of mass redundancy yet, but their days could be numbered in the long term as the Lord Chancellor's Department takes another step towards allowing cameras into courtrooms.

The arguments for and against allowing broadcasters into what is perhaps their last frontier are fairly well rehearsed.

In favour: open court should be open court with justice seen to be done.

The broadcast media is only a natural extension of the court reporter, and the cameras will provide an educative role in widening the public's knowledge of the justice system.

Against: court procedures will become trivialised and little more than light entertainment.

The more extrovert advocates will play to the cameras.

Far from justice being enhanced, it will be damaged and diminished.

At the risk of getting splinters from sitting on the fence, both sides have merit.

The US experience offers clear evidence that the public is interested in court proceedings, as the OJ Simpson trial and several local and national cable stations will attest.

But whether that fascination is in the wider public interest is debatable.

It may help if people see the gulf between Kavanagh QC and reality, but the court process must be treated with care and sensitivity.

We welcome the Lord Chancellor's pilot, but counsel against any hasty decision.