Three Women Rescued from Slavery: Laws on Servitude

It has recently emerged that three women have been rescued from slavery in Brixton, south London.

The three alleged victims are a 30 year old Briton, a 57 year old Irish woman, and a 69 year old Malaysian.

Police officers said the women had suffered years of ‘physical and mental abuse’. They are now in the care of a non-governmental organisation following their rescue last month.

The 30 year old woman is believed to have spent her entire life in captivity.

A 73 year old man and his 67 year old wife were arrested on 21 November 2013. They are believed to be Aravindan Balakrishanan and Chanda Balakrishanan, former Maoist acitivists. They have been bailed until January 2014.

The MP Frank Field, has said this case is just the ‘tip of an iceberg’. He is currently leading a review of evidence in advance of a modern slavery law being drafted.

So what are the current laws on slavery?

Human Rights

Everyone has the right not be held in slavery of servitude. It is a fundamental right set out in Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950. Article 4 provides:

1. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.

2. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

3. For the purpose of this Article the term “forced or compulsory labour” shall not include:

(a) any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according to the provisions of Article 5 of this Convention or during conditional release from such detention;

(b) any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military         service;

(c) any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;

(d) any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations.

So when an individual breaches another’s human rights and holds another them in slavery, what offences are they are they potentially committing?

Offences

Section 71(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 creates two offences. A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person holds another in slavery or servitude and the circumstances are such that person knows or should know that the other is being held in slavery or servitude; or

(b) the person requires another to perform forced or compulsory labour and the circumstances are such that the person knows or should know the other is being required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

Section 71(2) of the 2009 Act says references to slavery, servitude, forced labour and compulsory labour will be interpreted in accordance with Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The maximum sentence for these offences is 14 years’ imprisonment under section 71(3) of the 2009 Act.

Alternatively, a person can be charged with false imprisonment. This is an offence under the common law (for more information on the common law, see this article). The essence of this offence is holding another without the authority to do so.

According to the case of R v James (1997) a person is guilty of this offence when they prevent another’s freedom of movement, either by physical restraint or deliberate intimidation. The person must intend to prevent the other’s movement or be reckless as to it. Recklessness was defined in R v Cunningham (1957) as foreseeing a risk in their actions but then unreasonably taking those actions anyway. So in this case a person would be reckless if they saw that their actions might prevent another’s free movement but still taking those actions.

The maximum sentence for this offence is life imprisonment under the common law.

Conclusion

It is to be hoped that the three women can now find some sense of ‘normal’ life. Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see if their alleged slave masters are prosecuted. LawScape will bring news of any updates.

The Phone Hacking Trial: What are the Charges?

Introduction

We are now a few weeks into the trial of eight people for criminal allegations that emerged from the investigation into the News of the World newspaper before its closure in 2011.

The newspaper was closed by its parent company, News International, in July 2011 after the revelation that in 2002 the tabloid has instructed a private investigator to ‘hack’, or intercept, voicemails left on the mobile phone of Milly Dowler, a teenager who was abducted and murdered.

The hacking exploited that mobile phone operators gave customers default PIN codes to access their voicemail by either using another phone or dialling a separate number.

So who is on trial and what have they been charged with?

Defendants and Charges

There are eight defendants standing trial who are charged jointly with various offences. The offences for which they have been charged appear in an indictment, which is the formal document charging the defendants with certain offences. The actual indictment in this case appears at the end of this article. I shall deal with each defendant in turn.

Rebekah Brooks

She is the former editor of the News of the World. She is charged with five offences.

She is charged, firstly, with conspiracy to intercept communications in the course of their transmission.

This is an offence under section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. Section 1(1) of the 1977 provides it is an offence for a person to agree with others to follow a course of conduct which, if it is carried out as they intended, would involve an offence being committed. In essence, it is planning to carry out another offence.

The offence that was allegedly planned and committed was the unlawful interception of communications, or ‘hacking’, under section 1 of the Regulation of the Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This provides it is an offence for a person to intentionally intercept communications in the course of their transmission without lawful authority.

Under section 3 of the 1977 Act, the maximum sentence for conspiracy is the maximum sentence of the offence planned. The maximum sentence for unlawful interception is two years imprisonment under section 1(7) of the 2000 Act. Therefore the maximum sentence for conspiracy here is two years imprisonment.

The nature of this charge is that Brooks is alleged to have agreed with a number of other individuals (including Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman who have already been convicted of phone hacking) for them to hack the voicemails of a number of people.

Brooks is charged, secondly, with conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office.

Again the conspiracy is charged under section 1(1) of the 1977 Act. It is alleged the offence planned was misconduct in public office. This is an offence under the common law (for more information on what the common law is, see this article). The elements of this offence are set out in the case of Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 2003 (2004). The offence is committed when a public officer wilfully neglects to perform their duty, or misconducts themselves, to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder, without reasonable excuse or justification.

The maximum sentence for this conspiracy is life imprisonment because the maximum sentence for misconduct in public office is life imprisonment.

The nature of this charge is that Brooks allegedly agreed with a number of public office holders, such as police officers, to pay them for confidential information which would later be used in newspaper articles. By acting in this way the office holders would be committing misconduct in public office. Brooks is charged with two counts of this offence because it is alleged she agreed with two different groups of people to make these payments.

Brooks is charged, thirdly, with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Again the conspiracy is charged under section 1(1) of the 1977 Act. It is alleged the offence planned was perverting the course of justice. This is an offence under the common law. This offence is defined in the case of R v Vreones (1891) as doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice.

The maximum sentence for this conspiracy is life imprisonment because the maximum sentence for perverting the course of justice is life imprisonment.

The nature of this charge is that it is alleged Brooks agreed with others to permanently remove seven boxes of archived material from the archive of News International. Brooks is charged with two counts of this offence because it is also alleged she agreed with others to conceal documents, computers and other electronic equipment from police officers.

Andy Coulson

He is also a former editor of the News of the World. Additionally, he served as David Cameron’s government director of communications. He is charged with three offences.

He is charged, firstly, with conspiracy to intercept communications in the course of their transmission.

The law is the same as above. The nature of this charge is that Coulson is alleged, along with Brooks, to have agreed with a number of other individuals (including Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman, who have already been convicted of phone hacking) for them to hack the voicemails of a number of people.

Coulson is charged, secondly, with conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office.

The law is as before. The nature of this charge is that Coulson allegedly agreed, along with Goodman, with a number of public office holders, such as police officers, to pay them for confidential information to be used in newspaper articles. Coulson is charged with two counts of this offence because it is alleged he agreed to make payments on two different occasions.

Ian Edmonson

He is the former news editor of the News of the World. He is charged with one offence.

He is charged with conspiracy to intercept communications in the course of their transmission.

The law is the same as above. The nature of the charge is that Edmonson is alleged, along with Brooks and Coulson, to have agreed with a number of other individuals (including Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman, who have already been convicted of phone hacking) for them to hack the voicemails of a number of people.

Stuart Kuttner

He is the former managing editor of the News of the World. He is charged with one offence.

He is charged with conspiracy to intercept communications in the course of their transmission.

The law is the same as above. The nature of the charge is that Kuttner is alleged, along with Brooks, Coulson and Edmonson, to have agreed with a number of other individuals (including Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman, who have already been convicted of phone hacking) for them to hack the voicemails of a number of people.

Clive Goodman

He is the former royal editor of the News of the World. He is charged with two offences.

Goodman is charged with conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office.

The law is as before. The nature of the charge is that Goodman allegedly agreed, along with Coulson, with a number of public office holders, such as police officers, to pay them for confidential information to be used in newspaper articles. Goodman is charged with two counts of this offence because it is alleged he agreed to make payments during two different periods.

Cheryl Carter

She is Brooks’ former personal assistant. She is charged with one offence.

She is charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

The law is as before. The nature of the charge is that it is alleged Carter agreed, along with Brooks, with others to permanently remove seven boxes of archived material from the archive of News International.

Mark Hanna

He is the former head of security at News International. He is charged with one offence.

He is charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

The law is as before. The nature of the charge is that it is alleged Hanna agreed, along with Brooks, to conceal documents, computers and other electronic equipment from police officers.

Charlie Brooks

He is Brooks’ husband. He is charged with one offence.

He is charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

The law is as before. The nature of the charge is that it is alleged Brooks agreed, along with Brooks and Hanna, to conceal documents, computers and other electronic equipment from police officers.

Conclusion

The defendants all deny the allegations. This is a complex trial and is expected to last in the region of six months. It will be interesting to see how the case develops.

The Indictment

INDICTMENT

REGINA v Ian Edmondson, Rebekah Brooks, Andrew Coulson, Stuart Kuttner, Clive Goodman, Cheryl Carter, Charles Brooks and Mark Hanna

The charges are as follows:-

Count 1

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Conspiracy to intercept communications in the course of their transmission without lawful authority, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal law Act 1977.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

IAN EDMONDSON, REBEKAH BROOKS, ANDREW COULSON and STUART KUTTNER between 3 October 2000 and 9 August 2006 conspired together, and with Glenn Mulcaire, Clive Goodman, Greg Miskiw, Neville Thurlbeck, James Weatherup and persons unknown, to intercept, without lawful authority, communications in the course of their transmission by means of a public telecommunications system, namely mobile phone voicemail messages.

Count 2

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Conspiracy to commit Misconduct in Public Office, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

CLIVE GOODMAN and ANDREW COULSON, between the 31st August 2002 and the 31st January 2003, conspired together and with persons unknown to commit misconduct in public office.

Count 3

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Conspiracy to commit Misconduct in Public Office, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

CLIVE GOODMAN and ANDREW COULSON, between 31 January 2005 and 3 June 2005, conspired together and with persons unknown to commit misconduct in public office.

Count 4

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Conspiracy to commit Misconduct in Public Office, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

REBEKAH BROOKS between 1 January 2004 and 31 January 2012, conspired with John Kay, Fergus Shanahan, Geoffrey Webster and Bettina Jordan-Barber and persons unknown to commit misconduct in public office.

Count 5

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Conspiracy to commit Misconduct in Public Office, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

REBEKAH BROOKS, between 9 February 2006 and 16 October 2008, conspired with Duncan Larcombe, John Hardy and Claire Hardy and with persons unknown to commit misconduct in public office.

Count 6

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Conspiracy To Pervert The Course Of Justice, contrary to Section 1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

REBEKAH BROOKS and CHERYL CARTER between 6 July 2011 and 9 July 2011 conspired together to do a series of acts which had a tendency to and were intended to pervert the course of public justice, namely permanently to remove seven boxes of archived material from the archive of News International.

Count 7

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Conspiracy To Pervert The Course Of Justice, contrary to Section 1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

REBEKAH BROOKS, CHARLES BROOKS and MARK HANNA, between the 15 July 2011 and the 19 July 2011 conspired together and with Lee Sandell, David Johnson, Daryl Jorsling, Paul Edwards and persons unknown to do an act or a series of acts which had a tendency to and were intended to pervert the course of justice, namely to conceal documents, computers, and other electronic equipment from officers of the Metropolitan Police Service who were investigating allegations of phone hacking and corruption of public officials in relation to the News of the World and The Sun newspapers.

INDICTMENT ENDS

Lowering the Age of Consent: In Defence of Democracy

Prime Minister David Cameron has flatly rejected calls from a leading public health expert to lower the age of consent for sexual activity to 15 without a debate. Was he right to do so?

The Issue

The president of the Faculty of Public Health, Professor John Ashton, has argued that society has to accept about a third of teenagers are having sex aged 14 or 15. He argues that lowering the age of consent to 15 would make it easier for teenagers to get sexual health advice. He said that ‘[teenagers] are doing it and we need to be able to support them and protect them’.

In addition, he suggests that in countries with a lower age of consent, young people get involved in sex at a later age and the teenage pregnancy rates are lower.

Meanwhile, David Cameron has confirmed the Government has ‘no plans to change [the age of consent].’

The Current Law

The current age of consent is 16. This applies to all sexual acts by all individuals, whether the participants are heterosexual or homosexual. The law between heterosexual and homosexual acts was harmonised to the age of 16 in January 2001. The current law is set out in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Section 13 of the 2003 Act provides that it is an offence for a person under 18 to engage in sexual activity with a child under 16. The maximum sentence for this offence is five years imprisonment. Where the person committing the offence is aged 18 or over, the maximum sentence is 14 years imprisonment: section 9 of the 2003 Act.

Democracy

It is plain that faced with a third of teenagers breaking the law and high teenage pregnancy rates, the time has come to discuss whether the current age of consent is still adequate. However, David Cameron has denied us that debate flatly and without justification. It is highly undemocratic. The essence of democracy is dialogue and debate.

Debate is highly desirable. As John Stuart Mill noted when arguing in defence of free speech, debate is vital for two reasons. Firstly, if we suppress debate we might lose the benefit of discovering the truth about something or improving the state of affairs. Secondly, even if we have already achieved the truth or best state of affairs, suppressing debate prevents us from defending the truth or current state of affairs which consequently damages our ability to justify the truth or state of affairs.

Solution

So should the age of consent be lowered to 15? For my own part I am not sure if this is correct. It would allow the predatory minority of members of society to pursue even younger girls. Similarly, I do not think that society wants to punish teenagers, who all develop and become ready for sexual relations at different ages, for engaging in their sexual relationships. Indeed, lowering the age of consent will improve access to sexual advice and might well lead to better sexual health and lower teenage pregnancy rates. We have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in Europe, even though other countries have a lower age of consent (such as Sweden where it is 15).

Both of these concerns might, perhaps, be met by the introduction of a ‘two year rule’. Under a two year rule the age of consent would remain 16, but the law would provide that an individual engaging in sexual activity under that age would not be prosecuted so long as both participants have attained the age of 14 and there is no more than two years between the two participants. Perhaps this suggestion answers the problem. Perhaps it does not. That is the whole point of having a democratic debate and that is what society has been denied.

What are your thoughts?

Royal Marine Murder: Armed Forces Prosecutions

This week brought the unfortunate news that a Royal Marine has been found guilty by a Court Martial of murdering an Afghan insurgent. What happened and how do military prosecutions differ from civilian prosecutions?

The Facts

In September 2011 in Helmand province, an eight man patrol was tasked to deal with an Afghan insurgent who had been seriously injured in an Apache helicopter attack. Amongst the members of the patrol were Marines A, B and C. Everything the Marines did was captured on Marine B’s head camera. A portion of the audio taken from the camera recording can be listened to here.

They found the insurgent in the middle of a field and dragged him to the edge of the field. While dragging him, they were heard abusing him and laughing at him. Marine C, the youngest of accused Marines, was heard to say: ‘I’ll put one in his head if you want’. Marine A replied: ‘No, not in his head ‘cause that’ll be fucking obvious’.

Having reached the edge of the field Marine C said: ‘Maybe we should pump one in his heart’. The prosecution alleged that the marines waited for the Apache to depart the scene so their actions would not be seen. Marine A then shot the insurgent in the chest with a 9mm pistol before telling him: ‘There you are, shuffle off this mortal coil, you cunt. It’s nothing you wouldn’t do to us’.

Marine A was subsequently heard to say: ‘Obviously this doesn’t go anywhere fellas. I’ve just broken the Geneva convention’. The other agreed and Marine B suggested that they could claim the shot was a warning shot if anyone heard it.

The video was discovered by chance a year later when it was found on another marine’s computer during an unrelated investigation. Additionally, Marine C’s diary was later found to say that he had been disappointed not to shoot the insurgent.

The three marines were charged with murder and faced a Court Martial. Marine A accepted that he had shot the man but argued that he believed the man was dead and had shot the corpse in ‘frustration’ at the end of a tough tour. He said that he had said he had broken the Geneva conventions by shooting a prisoner’s corpse. Marines B and C said they did not know Marine A would shoot the man and denied they encouraged or assisted him. Marine A was convicted. Marines B and C were acquitted.

Military Prosecutions

The marines are part of the armed services and therefore subject to service law. They were consequently charged with murder under section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006. Under the 2006 Act, serious offences can be tried only by a Court Martial. A trial at a Court Martial proceeds in a very similar way to ordinary civilian criminal trials in the Crown Court. Instead of being presided over by a circuit judge, a Court Martial is presided over by a judge advocate. The current Judge Advocate General, Jeff Blackett, presided at the marine’s Court Martial. A Court Martial also differs from an ordinary trial in the Crown Court in that there is no jury; instead there is a board made up of officers and warrant officers. There will be at least three members on the board but no more than seven. The number of members depends on the severity of the offence. In this case there were seven members on the board. Matters of law are decided by the judge advocate. Matters of fact are decided by the board only just as a jury in a civilian trial determines the facts. The board also decides any sentence to be imposed. This is unlike civilian trials where the judge determines the sentence in addition to the law.

Next Steps

Having been convicted of murder Marine A now faces a mandatory life sentence. Sentencing has been adjourned while a report is prepared to assist the Court Martial to determine the minimum sentence that must be served because he can be released on lifelong licence.

Marine B and Marine C can return to their units.

The marines had been granted anonymity as the judge agreed their lives would be at risk if their identities were known. He had, however, agreed to lift the anonymity order after the trial. The men have indicated they intend to appeal the lifting of the order so it has been left in place for the time being. That issue will now be determined by the Court Martial Appeal Court.

Conclusion

It is a huge shame that this murder occurred. Indeed the Royal Marines have called it ‘a truly shocking and appalling aberration’. Nothing will ever make this course of behaviour acceptable. However, on today of all days, Remembrance Sunday, we should not allow this to taint our view of the British military. Instead, we should remember their ordinarily high level of professionalism, courage and dedication. We should remember how many of them have given their lives in the pursuit of democracy.

Further Arguments on Cameras in Courts

Last week history was made with the first television broadcast from the Court of Appeal. The next step, the Government says, is the broadcasting of remarks made by judges during the sentencing of convicted offenders. However, trials will not be broadcast. Meanwhile television companies ultimately seek to broadcast trials, and some senior members of the judiciary foresee that as the end result.

So is the broadcast of full trials desirable? I firmly believe it is not and shall seek to persuade you why.

An Argument Against Broadcasting Trials

It is almost inevitable that the broadcasting of trials would lead to short snippets of edited footage appearing on news programmes. This editing of raw footage into newsworthy sound bites is the first concerning prospect televised trials present. Edited material is peculiarly dangerous since it does not present the whole picture and, in its worst form, can positively misrepresent a situation. I recall an excellent example of this danger which, as it happens, concerned the print media, who has long been welcome along with the rest of the public to attend trials for the purposes of reporting. This particular case concerned serious allegations against a professional male of grooming a 15 year old male teenager. Although the defendant was not charged with the offence, rape was also alleged. A local newspaper reporter attended and listened to the entirety of the complainant’s evidence. Like much unchallenged evidence it sounded convincing. At the conclusion of the complainant’s evidence the reporter left and did not subsequently return. She missed one of the best displays of cross-examination I have ever seen, which exposed the teenager’s evidence as grossly inconsistent at best. Sure enough however, the newspaper’s report covered the salacious detail of the allegations yet failed entirely to report on the systematic explosion of the complainant’s evidence. Instead, a short article later appeared that said the defendant had been cleared. Overall, the reporting was inaccurate and highly damaging to a demonstrably innocent man. The inalienable stigma of being accused of a sexual offence was not countered at all by accurate reporting. Instead, I suggest it was exacerbated by incomplete reporting. I am not for a moment suggesting that was the reporter’s intention, but it was the inevitable consequence of ‘edited’ reporting, reporting that did not present the full picture but instead presented an incomplete one.

Complex fact scenarios do not lend themselves to being edited into a short segment. When they are reduced to this, a misleading picture is almost certain to follow. This is extremely dangerous. Returning to the unfortunate defendant I mentioned above, had that trial been edited into a news segment it might very well have misled in exactly the same way as the newspaper report. Now however, instead of a local readership gaining an inaccurate impression the whole nation can gain one. The defendant would be indelibly marked in the national consciousness with the stigma of having been accused of a sexual offence. To my mind that is not justice, that is rank injustice.

We are of course familiar with edited material. We are often subjected to recordings of Parliament than have been edited. Shortened edited portions present one picture, while anyone who watched the proceedings in full on BBC Parliament has often seen another. The distortion that edited material creates is intensified by the on-demand media consumption culture we now live in. We do not receive this edited information on sporadic news broadcasts. Instead news is broadcast all day, every day, and modern technology allows us to consume news on the move. Edited, inaccurate material has the ability to be all pervasive and it is positively dangerous. So if it is the editing of material that is problematic can we not safely broadcast uninterrupted trials? This requires a more general examination of the arguments against broadcasting trials.

Firstly, it takes a great deal of courage for the victims and witnesses of crime to attend court and give evidence. It is often difficult to secure their attendance; most people understandably fear giving evidence. It seems to me to be highly probable that broadcasting proceedings would make it even more difficult to secure the attendance of victims and witnesses (although I do not have statistical evidence to support this). Victims and witnesses are often required to recall extremely disturbing events in their life, events which they rarely wish to recall; especially to the unknown individuals they face in a courtroom. Requiring them to recall events in the knowledge that they are being broadcast nationally is, I suggest, likely to deter victims and witnesses from coming forward so that they can avoid that level of publicity. You might respond that everything a witness says can be reported in the print press, so does television broadcasting make a difference. I argue that it does: reading words is not the same as seeing the actual individual presenting the evidence in their own voice. Words are dissociated from the person, but audio images are not; the spotlight is squarely on an identifiable and vulnerable individual. Even if the individual were not shown on screen their voice identifies them far more than reading their spoken words in a newspaper. Perhaps the only way to avoid this is to obscure witnesses’ voices too. So far as I know, this has not been suggested as a realistic or desirable option.

In my view, it is far more important that we secure justice (through a trial) by ensuring victims and witnesses are not deterred from giving evidence, rather than televising trials in the pursuit of open justice. After all, if justice is thwarted by victims and witnesses being deterred from giving evidence then what we are televising could hardly be described as justice. It would be a façade of justice while many crimes fail to reach trial where a just outcome can be secured. You might respond: ‘How do we know we have secured justice if we cannot see it? Is it not a vital principle that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done?’ Yes it is. But justice can be seen and can be checked; it is just limited to those in attendance at the court. I suggest that the number of people that a witness anticipates might see them giving evidence affects their willingness to give evidence. If that is the case, it is better that we secure justice and limit the number of people directly observing the witness giving evidence, rather than televising all proceedings in the pursuit of open justice.

A second argument against broadcasting trials appears to be that television companies are interested only because of the potential for salacious content, not to ensure that the course of justice is openly broadcast in its entirety. I am prepared to be corrected on that point, but I have not seen any television companies offering to fund the broadcast of complete trials to ensure they are not misleading. What instead appears to be desired is newsworthy snippets of sensational material. This leads us back to the dangers of edited material.

Meanwhile we must ask what broadcasting trials would achieve? Likely positive outcomes include a better understanding of the court system and perhaps greater for respect for it and its participants. But this is nothing that we cannot already achieve. Simply attending a court can result in these outcomes. You might respond that this is not practical for many people as they work or have other commitments. My response is simply that there is no established lobby by members of the public demanding the broadcasting of trials. The public appears to be perfectly content to read court news. Moreover, these outcomes do not outweigh the risk to justice identified above: there is little point televising trials if it is likely to damage justice.

Conclusion

The issue of televised trials is not simply matter of improving open justice. The aim of the justice system is to ensure just outcomes. Televised trials pose a risk to justhat is not outweighed by the benefits of open justice. We should not therefore allow justice to be compromised by televised trials.

What are your thoughts?

Cameras in the Court of Appeal

History was made yesterday when proceedings from the Court of Appeal were televised for the first time.

A Change in the Law

The broadcast followed a change in the law that lifted a ban on recording proceedings. The ban is contained in section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Section 32 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 provides that the Lord Chancellor may, with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice, direct in an order than the provisions of the ban do not apply. The order which allows the recording of proceedings (and sets out the rules) in the Court of Appeal is the Court of Appeal (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2013.

The First Case

The first case broadcast was an application for permission to appeal against sentence. In May 2013, Kevin Fisher was convicted of possessing counterfeit currency and items to make counterfeit currency. Amongst the items found in his possession were 1.6 million metal discs (known as ‘blanks’) that were to be transformed into fake currency. He was sentenced to a total of seven years in prison. He was seeking permission to appeal against the length of his sentence. His application had already been refused by a judge on a reading of the case papers, so he renewed his application at an oral hearing in the Court of Appeal.

Fisher’s barrister, Alexander Cameron QC (Prime Minister David Cameron’s elder brother) argued that the seven year sentence was incorrect for three reasons. Firstly, he argued that Fisher had been sentenced for the wrong offence; secondly, he argued the sentence was longer than the sentences passed in similar cases; finally, he argued the sentence was too long compared with the sentence Fisher’s co-accused received.

After retiring briefly to consider the arguments, the three judges returned to announce their decision. Lord Justice Pitchford delivered an ex tempore judgment (one given verbally without having been written in advance) and held that Fisher had been correctly sentenced. His application for permission to appeal was dismissed.

Final Thoughts

Televising appeals is a positive step which should improve the public’s understanding of the justice system. It is to be hoped that proceedings are recorded so that they do not have to be watched live when much of society is working or otherwise engaged.  It is less clear if it would be a positive step to broadcast actual trials. For more on the arguments for and against televising proceedings, see this article.

What are your thoughts on televised proceedings?