In camera gets new meaning in UK courts

It has always been a strict rule that no cameras or recording devices can be used in our courts of law and anyone caught doing so will certainly face a heavy penalty. It is a rule that Hong Kong inherited from Britain.

But, step by step, Britain along with a number of countries is allowing it, though only with strict limitations.

Recently, in its high court, and for the first time ever, television cameras were allowed to broadcast a judge's sentencing.

Only one was used, it only showed the judge, and it was only switched on for as along as she spoke, which was 19 minutes.

Despite those restrictions it meant that for the first time the British public together with anyone else anywhere with an internet connection could see and hear a judge explain the evidence, give her reasons, and finally sentence a person. The broadcast can be viewed at youtube.com/watch?v=pUxrgS2hNpQ

To my mind it was a rewarding moment for Britain's legal system and can only have increased respect for, and understanding of, the criminal law in action.

Sarah Munro showed how carefully judges must be when they consider evidence, how they must weigh them and take account of outside advice such as reports by probation officers, and finally how they assess and determine an apt sentence.

Like all lawyers who work in courts, I have often been surprised, shocked and sometimes annoyed by the way the media misrepresents what actually occurs in court.

Often this is because the law can be very complex and the media does not have the time, space, or ability to report fully or accurately.

There is a constant danger that the media omits important details, and sometimes seriously misrepresents things.

Unhappily, the result is that the public is often left with a wrong understanding of why judges reach the decisions they do and nobody wants that to happen.

Allowing in cameras has long been resisted as it was feared that to do so would turn courts into a sort of media circus.

However, the broadcast of Munro passing a life sentence on Ben Oliver, who she said was a "very damaged man," for the killing of his 74-year-old grandfather, showed the move can have a very beneficial effect.

The public could hear her explain factors she had to consider in such a serious case. She showed how she dealt with the complex issues involved and how she did so with great sensitivity and compassion.

Eventually she sentenced Oliver, who has autism spectrum disorder, to a life sentence with a minimum of 10 years and eight months for the manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility of David Oliver.

She explained aggravating factors such as offenses he committed (including a sexual offense against a girl) and the torment he inflicted on his grandfather. There were also mitigating factors such as the way he was abused as a child by his family.

The old historic idea was that the courts were open to the public and that is why they have seating reserved for people. But the world has moved on.

Nowadays, people rarely take up their right to watch justice in action by sitting in a court's public gallery. I think it would be a step forward if the public could more easily see how justice is administered.

No doubt there will always be a need to restrict the use of cameras as certain people, such as witnesses, need to be protected.

The UK's most senior judge, Lord Chief Justice Burnett is surely correct when he says "it is important that the justice system and what happens in our courts is as transparent as possible. My hope is that there will be regular broadcasting of the remarks in high profile cases, and that will improve public understanding."

I rest my case.

Cheng Huan is an author and a senior counsel who practices in Hong Kong