header-logo header-logo

08 September 2011
Issue: 7480 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Court out on camera

Justice secretary overturns ban on TV cameras in court

TV cameras are to be allowed into the Court of Appeal for the first time in a bid to “improve transparency”.

Justice secretary Ken Clarke said this week that the ban on filming in the courts would be overturned to improve public understanding of the justice system. Filming will be of judges’ summary remarks only—witnesses, offenders, victims, and jurors will not be filmed.

Footage will first be broadcast from the Court of Appeal, and the government will then look to expand the scheme to include the crown court. Clarke said all changes would be worked out in close consultation with the judiciary, and that he wished to avoid turning the courts into a “legal theatre”.

The move follows a campaign by Sky News, BBC, and ITN to get the ban lifted. Sky News currently holds the right to broadcast a live video stream from the Supreme Court on its website. 

The government will bring forward legislation to amend s 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and s 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which prohibit broadcasting in court.

Clarke said more information about the performance of the courts will be published in future, including how long it takes each court to process small claims hearings, larger civil and family cases and care proceedings.

Peter Lodder QC, chairman of the Bar Council, speaking ahead of Clarke’s announcement this week, said: “The Bar is well aware of the increasing dominance of the broadcast and internet-based media in public life, and we offer a qualified welcome to these proposals. It is vital that the judiciary are consulted and that the welfare of victims, witnesses, and jury members is taken into account.”

Issue: 7480 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll