Showing court cases on TV could increase confidence in legal system, claims top judge

By Daily Mail Reporter

"Showing key court cases on television could help to increase confidence in the legal system" the top civil judge in England and Wales has claimed.

Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger said the move would need to be looked at "very carefully" but could increase confidence in the system, transparency and engagement.

The Supreme Court already televises its judgments, he said, 'but from a public interest perspective might there not be an argument now for its hearings, and some hearings of the Court of Appeal, being televised on some equivalent of the Parliament Channel, or via the BBC iPlayer'.

'If we wish to increase public confidence in the justice system, transparency and engagement, there is undoubtedly something to be said for televising some hearings, provided that there were proper safeguards to ensure that this increased access did not undermine the proper administration of justice'.

'Such an idea would have to be looked at very carefully, and it would not be sensible for me to try and make any firm suggestions'.

'But, if broadcasting of court proceedings does go ahead, I think it would be right to make two points, even at this tentative stage.

'First, the judge or judges hearing the case concerned would have to have full rights of veto over what could be broadcast; secondly, I would be very chary indeed about the notion of witness actions or criminal trials being broadcast - in each case for obvious reasons.'

Lord Neuberger also backed the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge's provisional decision to allow the use of Twitter in courts.

'It seems to me that, subject again to proper safeguard, the advent of court tweeting should be accepted, provided of course that the tweeting does not interfere with the hearing,' he said.

'Why force a journalist or a member of the public to rush out of court in order to telephone or text the contents of his notes written in court, when he can tweet as unobtrusively as he can write?

'It seems to me, in principle, that tweeting is an excellent way to inform and engage interested members of the public, as well as the legal profession.'

But he joked: 'Whatever the outcome of the consultation, I doubt however that we will see the development of tweeting from the bench.'

1. What is the essential idea of the article?
2. What suggestions are made by Lord Neuberger about televising trials?
3. Is he for or against broadcasting trials?

What do you think?

1. Is it a good idea to televise trials?
2. What are bad and good points about these shows?

5. Разделитесь на две группы: те, кто выступает в защиту телевизионных судебных процессов, и те, кто против. В группах напишите аргументы «за» или «против». Назначьте в каждой группе студента, который озвучит ваши доводы. Постарайтесь переубедить своих оппонентов или выработать единую точку зрения по данному вопросу.

Прочитайте выдержку из доклада, сделанного Международной комиссией юристов (ICJ), о проблемах в сфере судебной власти в России. На английском языке кратко расскажите о том, что вы узнали.

THE JUDICIARY IN PRACTICE: PROBLEMS OF INDEPENDENCE

AND EFFECTIVENESS

The judiciary in Russia seems to be struggling with its institutional past and long-standing legal culture. Some positive reforms have been instituted, but more far-reaching reforms are needed. Yet there is a near-absence of open public discussion on reforms or a clear plan for carrying reform forward.

The International Commission of Jurists undertook a five-day research mission to Moscow from 20 to 24 June 2010 to analyze judicial reform in the Russian Federation (RF) and to assess the progress made so far and the problems that remain. The outcome of this research was the report aimed to shed light on certain aspects of judicial independence and to suggest solutions to address some of these long-standing issues.

Section IV of this report considers the practical matters that affect the independence of the judiciary. The following problems are described:

Undue influence on judges. Judges were said to be often directly instructed on how to resolve a case. If the expectations are not met, a decision may be revoked and a judge may face disciplinary measures due to a poor record, pushing justice to the sidelines.

Procuratura and Law Enforcement. The procuratura is said to influence the judiciary, contrary to the requirement of strict respect of the independence and the impartiality of judges. Generally more weight is given to the prosecution’s opinion than to that of the defence, while judges who are not attentive enough to the demands of the prosecution may face consequences including dismissals. More generally, the pressure from law enforcement interests remains strong and laws have recently been adopted that strengthen the FSB.

Corruption. Not only are courts subject to political pressure, there are allegations that some judges provide “services” to organizations and individuals, for instance by taking bribes for expedited consideration of cases or for making particular decisions.

Factors influencing the attitudes and mindset of judges. Problems of the judiciary are rooted in the attitudes of judges for whom it is difficult to recognize the priority of human rights and interests of an individual. Many judges see themselves as agents of the state whose main goal is to protect its interests.

Public trust and civil society. There is a clear lack of public trust in the fairness and effectiveness of the justice system, as judges are often viewed as servants of the state and defenders of its interests.