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?