Sometime in the next few weeks, the crime and courts bill will complete all its stages in parliament and become law. Clause 28 allows for the filming of proceedings in court and I welcome it. I think my case is strengthened by the behaviour of the jury in the Vicky Pryce trial.
There has been a lot of comment this week about that jury and trial – a trial which ended in some disarray following a series of questions from the jury which the judge felt undermined their ability to come to a verdict. The judge expressed dismay at their questions; other legally qualified and legally literate people sneered at how stupid the jurors must have been. I take a very different view.
First, it struck me that some of the questions sounded like some members of the jury enlisting the judge’s support to make clear to other jurors what was and wasn’t permissible ie making a decision on the basis of facts and evidence not presented during the proceedings or making a decision on the basis of religious factors. It seemed that some, if not all, of the jurors had a very good understanding of what they could base their decision on, but were worried that they couldn’t persuade others of the legitimate basis for their decisions.
Second, even the question about the nature of ‘reasonable doubt’, while it should have come earlier in the proceedings, strikes me as being a sensible one. Many who have commented on this question have suggested that it’s obvious what ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ means. Even the judge responded that these were words in common usage, as if this meant that their meaning in this very difficult context was, therefore, obvious. I don’t think it is if you have never been involved with a court case before, don’t have a legal training and haven’t had any opportunity to see how a court works.
As far as I’m aware, jurors receive no training and only limited advice from the judge on the legal basis on which they should make their decisions. Judges obviously have a thorough understanding of the role of juries, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are well suited to explaining that to people without any legal background. Isn’t this a job for professional trainers?
And this is why I think the broadcasting of court proceedings could be so important. I’m a fan of Kavanagh QC and used to enjoy a few episodes of Crown Court when off school ill, but these are hardly a good basis for understanding a modern court. Surely all of us, and particularly potential jurors and witnesses could benefit from seeing or hearing court proceedings.
Since the government announced the proposals for legislation last May, there have been a range of arguments against. I have a lot of time for the points raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights about the potential impact on vulnerable witnesses and victims. This is why I think there should be a veto on broadcasting for any victim or witness.
But some of the other arguments are pretty weak – and were exactly the ones used against the televising of parliament – for example, that it could lead to the development of ‘celebrity lawyers’, that people will play to the camera. I think the public are pretty well able to determine who’s serious and who isn’t – they manage it with parliament. Even more bizarrely, the lord chief justice was reported as suggesting that the televising of judges handing down sentences might encourage people to boo or throw things. In my experience what makes people want to boo and throw things at judges is a sentence which seems to make no sense. Surely being able to hear a judge explaining the range of issues taken into consideration in setting a sentence is likely to make people more understanding of the difficult work that judges have to do and to have more faith in the system as a whole.
For many people the criminal justice system remains a closed and mysterious process. Justice may be done, but it certainly isn’t seen. Broadcasting from courts could be one small step in opening up the process for the benefit of victims, witnesses and jurors alike.
—————————————————————————————
Jacqui Smith is former home secretary, writes the Monday Politics column for Progress, and tweets @smithjj62
—————————————————————————————