Americans are used to watching the action unfold in court from the comfort of their armchair, and while the subject of allowing TV cameras into Scottish courts has been debated for years it has never happened - until now. In a very understated manner last month BBC Scotland was allowed to film judgements in Scottish courts for the first time. Steven Raeburn speaks to Elizabeth Cutting, the main architect of this development.

---

There was no more of a sense of theatre in Court number three at Edinburgh’s High Court one morning in April as Nat Fraser’s appeal against conviction for the murder of his wife Arlene was rejected than on any usual morning.

Three judges filed in and took their seats, the decision was read out by Lord Gill, and upon its conclusion Fraser was led away quietly. Notwithstanding the public interest and Fraser’s high profile, Court proceedings were straightforward and unremarkable. Except that without fanfare or ceremony, they were unobtrusively observed and recorded by the TV camera mounted in the jury box.

Before seven days had passed it had happened again, this time covering the appeal against conviction of Luke Mitchell. Both verdicts appeared on the evening news, and in full on news websites, rendering the whole process far less murky and a good deal more transparent than they have ever been to the lay members of the public, who ordinarily have neither the time nor particular inclination to attend court.

Although the forum is public, in practice the public are rarely in attendance, other than those with a direct interest in the events themselves. If you didn’t know better, you would think TV coverage of court proceedings - something long desired, frequently touted but universally prohibited -was suddenly and without ceremony upon us.

Almost. But not quite.

The daily workings of the High Court have slowly but significantly opened up int he five years since the creation of the role of Information Officer, which, since its inception, has been filled by Elizabeth Cutting, a woman of particular professional modesty and discretion, but considerable effectiveness and reach, who has become familiar -and latterly indispensable -to the news writers and court reporters of Scotland. Where once they had to rely on their own scribbled shorthand notes, Cutting now provides near instantaneous copies of judicial summaries. Newspaper reports have made good use of them, boosting the depth and quality of crime reporting,particularly when the case is high profile, and press interest correspondingly so.

The once tightly closed world of the Judiciary has slowly, but definitively changed.

“My appointment started to open things up a bit more; having someone to deal with the media on behalf of the judiciary allowed
us more of a dialogue with the media, and allowed a lot more information to be made available,” she told The Firm.

“That opened up the media to a lot more sentencing statements, court opinions and giving people greater access to information they didn’t have before. Through that the issue of television cameras in court has been raised on a number of occasions, and working within the framework that was put together by Lord Hope in his practice note, we thought that there was an opportunity to allow cameras in court, but only under certain conditions, where there is no threat to the administration of justice whatsoever.”

The last point is the most crucial, and has always been the key point that has proven to be an insurmountable obstacle in the televising of trials or other court procedures in the past. Memories of the US court television, and the awful charade of the OJ Simpson trial, represent the degree to which matters of crucial judicial importance can become perverted if those involved are guided by the priorities of entertainment and visual perception, rather than justice.

To this end, strict criteria were applied and guidelines given to the BBC, who administered the coverage, subject to an agreement that allowed the footage to be pooled amongst other broadcasters. So a single camera was placed in the court, and only the judges themselves were to be shown, together with the Macer and the Clerk of Court, but only insofar as they would enter the field of view.

Neither the Crown nor defence teams would be shown, and in particular the accused themselves in each case were neither seen nor heard, nor was permission sought from them for their cases to be covered. Whilst there were no interruptions from the public in either of the two hearings, had there been so, these would have been omitted from any broadcast, leaving only the Judges‚ summary as the content of the coverage.

“These two appeal court advisings were the ones that were identified as being of significant public interest,” Cutting explains.

“Not everyone can come to court and see what is happening, and this gave us an opportunity to provide access to the public to the court’s decision, To be able to sit and watch on the website and listen to the whole decision of the court means it is not filtered through other media channels; you can listen to absolutely every word that was said in court, which has not happened before.

The two cases covered were intended to operate as an experiment to test both the practicality and desirability of any future coverage. The feeling amongst the Judiciary has generally been that the experiment was a success, and it was notable that whilst many of the mainstream news networks used and took advantage of the pictures, very little coverage was given to the fact that the process was being filmed at all, which may indicate the degree to which the broadcasters are keen to ensure the practice becomes more frequent.

Whilst Cutting says the coverage ran smoothly, she is keen to point out that cameras in court are not yet likely to be seen as regular part of court procedure.

“I wouldn’t say it is going to be routine. These two cases were identified and there was a lot of public interest, and they presented the opportunity to do this. A lot of cases are very, very routine and there won’t be the public interest in them. I don’t think you’ll see TV cameras going in to court every day of the week,” she says.

“I think it has been a success. We have opened up the courts to a lot more people and helped people understand exactly what happened in court that day.”

Despite the apparent success of the current trial run, it is not envisaged that the use of cameras in court is likely to extend to the coverage of trial proceedings, and aside from the two high profile examples of last month, nothing further is planned in the immediate future.

Anything which adds to the understanding of the workings of the courts, its normal operation and the administration of justice helps to aid the public understanding of the judiciary and its personnel. That can only be to the advantage of Scottish public life if this aspect of it becomes more open, accessible and visible. Neither the judges nor the legal system itself has anything to fear from honest, open examination of their processes in dispensing justice.