Open to public view

The press have been getting very excited this week about the pending arrival of the TV cameras in court for the sentencing of David Gilroy for the murder of Suzanne Pilley. And even more so over the possibility of it happening too for the trial of Nat Fraser for the murder of his wife. Both, incidentally, cases where no body has been found.

Headlines however have been rather overblown. All we will be able to see in the Gilroy case is the judge actually passing sentence, after the Crown and defence have already had their say - which is more like saying a football match will be televised and then showing only the final whistle. And the proposal in Fraser (to which the judge has agreed, but accused, counsel and witnesses have still to confirm) is that proceedings be filmed for use in a subsequent documentary, not for nightly news broadcasts.

Nevertheless the significance of the developments is that they are happening at all. Virtually nothing has been seen on screen of the courts in live cases at first instance since the documentary series around 1992, which did make an impact - I can still picture scenes from it myself.

With so much about the law shrouded in mystique, as long as most people do not in practice have an opportunity to see the courts in action by visiting in person, it is right that the public should be informed as to how justice is dispensed - with one very important proviso. The opening up of the justice system in this way must not become a threat to justice actually being done in the cases in question.

This would happen in particular if witnesses were put off from coming forward, or deterred from giving the evidence they otherwise would, because of the fear of exposure on the nation's TV screens and the possible consequences from that. As regards cases on appeal there should normally be little issue with public screening - and the UK Supreme Court has set an example with its live coverage - but it is trials that are the meat and drink of the news media, and it is with trials that the greatest need for caution exists. Analogies with televising parliamentary proceedings are not helpful here.

If precedents such as the two instant cases are set, you can be sure the media will be constantly pushing for more and wider coverage, and if the guidelines set down 20 years ago need updated, this should be undertaken urgently, to minimise the time required to deal with individual applications. To those who say application should not be needed at all, I suggest that would be going much too far, for the foreseeable future. The courts and not the media should retain control of an exercise with such potential to impact on the conduct, and the outcome, of trials. It can be hard enough securing testimony without such an added psychological barrier for those already reluctant to take the stand.

So let us keep a careful control for the time being of what is allowed. It will still be a long time before we see broadcasting of daily recorded extracts from cases in progress, and questions would certainly have to be answered over how to achieve fair coverage before such could be permitted. But let the rules that are applied be seen to be intelligent and sensible. That should in itself help the public understand our criteria for delivering justice.