WE televise Parliament, so why not the courts as well?

I was strongly in favour of televising Parliament, when this became a live issue 23 years ago.

I’ve supported it ever since.

The public, our employers, have an absolute right to see what we’re doing in their name.

But there have been downsides to having cameras in the Commons and Lords.

The bear garden of Prime Minister’s Questions gives a wholly distorted view of how we spend our time.

The televising of Parliament also led to newspapers abandoning systematic reporting of what happens, so – paradoxically – some of the public may be less informed than they were.

In a town where no-one is slow in coming forward with their views, I don’t recall a single occasion where any constituent has emailed, written, or stopped me in the street, to propose that court proceedings should be televised.

This doesn’t make the idea right, or wrong; but serves as a reminder that the demand to put the cameras into courts is being driven not by public demand or, for example, by victims’ groups, but by the media themselves.

The pros and cons of putting the cameras into courts are much more finely balanced than for Parliament.

The televising of the judgments of the highest court in the United Kingdom – the UK Supreme Court (previously the Law Lords) – has gone on for years.

There’s no reason why the judgments of the Court of Appeal should not similarly be televised.

But, with rare exceptions, the television companies aren’t interested in dry-as-dust appeal proceedings.

What interests them is the criminal courts.

The initial proposal is to televise the judge alone – summing up a trial, handing down a sentence. It’s hard, in principle, to oppose that. But what really interests the TV companies is the drama, and the theatre, of the criminal trial.

In some US states, trials are televised. I’ve watched some.

It’s a rather grotesque form of “reality TV” .

Whether it’s improved public understanding, I’m very sceptical.

Do we want that here?