header-logo header-logo

More work needed to support open justice

02 November 2022
Issue: 8001 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Technology , Media
printer mail-detail
The decline of local newspapers has resulted in court proceedings being less visible to the public, and digital media has so far failed to fill the gap, a parliamentary committee has warned.

Those regional titles that remain are no longer able to send reporters to court on a regular basis, the Justice Committee highlighted in a report published this week, ‘Open justice: court reporting in the digital age’. It heard evidence that the quality of publicly available information can often be poor and basic data about court proceedings unavailable. The committee also heard complaints about a lack of access to key documents submitted to courts making it difficult to follow proceedings. 

Consequently, the committee urged the court system to do more to support open justice in the digital age. It called on courts to remove barriers to the media and members of the public attending court proceedings, and urged the government to do more to support digital platforms to cover court decisions.

The committee called for the creation of a single, digital portal where the media and public can access full information on court proceedings, court documents and other relevant information. It urged that every court have a publicised point of contact that supports access, provides information and answers queries. Holding open days would also send a message about open justice, it said.

Moreover, new technologies offer new opportunities—remote proceedings could make courts more accessible for reporters; social media supports instant reporting and live updates; and the broadcasting of sentencing remarks could be extended from Crown courts to other courts.

The committee also called for greater transparency in family courts, and branded the legislative framework on reporting on family proceedings no longer fit for purpose and in need of review and reform.

Justice Committee chair Sir Bob Neill said: ‘Too often, significant patience and tenacity is required to access court proceedings that it is our democratic right to witness.

‘The Courts & Tribunal Service needs to do more [to] remove barriers to the media and public coming to court rooms, not just by doing more to publicise information but actually welcoming them in and showing how the justice system works.’

Issue: 8001 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Technology , Media
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll