Give the courts their own TV channel, suggests Neuberger

Lord Neuberger's suggestion for broadcasting court cases 'goes further' than the media's current request, according to one top news executive.

Head of Sky News, John Ryley, was among a raft of media chiefs to welcome Neuberger's comments on rolling out the current filming of Supreme Court cases to lower hearings, saying: 'Neuberger was echoing the argument I and other broadcasters have been making in the long-running campaign for cameras to be allowed into courtrooms: for the public to have confidence in the judiciary, justice must be widely seen to be done.

'He added caveats but went further than the initial steps I proposed last year: that judgments and sentencing remarks should be broadcast.'

Neuberger made the suggestion as part of his 'Open justice unbound?' speech given to the Judicial Studies Board's annual lecture last week. He ruled out the likelihood of televising criminal cases, and suggested broadcasting should always be at the judge's discretion, but said there was a strong argument for the move in principle: 'If we wish to increase public confidence in the justice system,' said Neuberger, 'there is undoubtedly something to be said for televising some hearings, provided that there were proper safeguards to ensure that this increased access did not undermine the proper administration of justice.'

The Master of the Rolls conceded the media has had 'little appetite' for televising the Supreme Court's hearings so far. But he suggested there may be value in setting up a judicial equivalent of the Parliament Chanel, pointing to the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court's decision to launch its own channel, TV Justiça.

The High Court judge highlighted Human Rights Act cases as potential television subjects, because they represent 'one of the most fertile grounds for inaccurate reporting'.

Pointing to misleading tabloid reports of cases vaguely linked to Human Rights Act claims, Neuberger said: 'It is one thing to disagree with a judgment, to disagree with a law and to campaign to change the law, but it is another thing to misstate what was said in a judgment, or to misstate the law.

It was also suggested the Supreme Court's use of media briefs, which are handed out with every judgment, should be extended.

Welcoming the current consultation on using Twitter in court, Neuberger said: 'It seems to me, in principle, that tweeting is an excellent way to inform and engage interested members of the public, as well as the legal profession. Whatever the outcome of the consultation, I doubt, however, that we will see the development of tweeting from the bench.'

On the matter of court reporters tweeting proceedings live, John Ryley added: 'It shows that our most senior judges appreciate the value of modern technology. Modern remote controlled TV cameras can be just as unobtrusive as a reporter on Twitter.'