Resistance in the past has often been fueled by fears that going on camera could risk turning the cases into the kind of media circus seen around high-profile trials in the US such as that of OJ Simpson or, although a political case, the recent case of Johnny Depp v Amber Defamation proceedings were heard. But what viewers saw on Thursday was something completely different, with the cameras focused solely on Judge Sarah Munro QC delivering her sentencing remarks in a murder case in grave tones. Sky News, the BBC, ITN and PA have been granted permission to film in court and broadcasters showed Thursday’s footage live. Before Munro made history, Lord Chancellor Dominic Raab said the move would improve the public’s understanding of the justice system and anyone who has not attended a crown court sentencing in person might have been surprised by what they saw. Reporting of sentencing statements by reporters is inevitably limited, but viewers would have gained insight into how judges balance aggravating and mitigating factors and are bound by sentencing guidelines – something that often goes unreported when there is outrage over a particular sentence. Munro spoke for almost 20 minutes before sentencing Ben Oliver, who has an autism spectrum disorder, to life in prison with a minimum term of 10 years and eight months for manslaughter due to diminished responsibility of his grandfather David Oliver. He found his level of responsibility to be “at the top of the medium level” (the three levels are low, medium and high) and listed aggravating factors such as Oliver’s previous offending – he had been convicted of sexually assaulting a girl – and the suffering he caused the his grandfather. Mitigating factors included the “irreparable damage” caused by abuse during Oliver’s upbringing and the fact that other family members had discussed killing David Oliver over unproven allegations of sexual abuse against him. It was a far cry from the scenes often seen on televised trials in the US. And with crown court filming limited to sentencing statements – and even then only when the judge agrees – there’s no danger of an episode like OJ Simpson’s glove not fitting hitting theaters in the UK. There are some who would like to see things in England and Wales go further, given that the other benefit Raab cites is transparency. Chris Daw QC, author of Justice on Trial, said televising sentencing statements was a good first step but would open things up completely – with protections for witnesses and vulnerable defendants – to correct media inaccuracies but also show the underfunding of the criminal justice System. “Where there are no lawyers to deal with the case, they [viewers] they could see the frustration of the judge, they could see the impact it has on the witnesses and the victims, and I just feel like there would be more pressure from the public to do something about it,” he said. “Right now I don’t think the public realizes how completely broken the system is.” Thursday’s small but significant change comes as transparency declines elsewhere. Introduced in 2015, the single judicial process (SJP) – administrative decisions made in closed court – accounts for more than 50% of cases that go through magistrates’ courts in England and Wales each year, with 535,000 SJP cases being heard in 2020. In addition, under the Judicial Review and Courts Act, which came into force this month, other judge proceedings are being moved out of open court to be dealt with administratively, in a move that critics say will leave the media without knowledge of the existence of a “significant number of criminal cases” at the time they come before a court.
