3 ms·

It is illegal to record proceedings in a court within the UK under S41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 (no photography or drawings) and S9 of the Contempt of C

It is illegal to record proceedings in a court within the UK under S41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 (no photography or drawings) and S9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (no sound recordings or public playing of recordings). Courts may choose to televise their own proceedings (for example, the Supreme Court in the UK televises its hearings) but they are not obliged to. This happens under S32 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The hearing was public (most court hearings are public): you could go and sit in the public gallery if you so wished (space permitting), but you are not allowed to film or record the proceedings without the permission of the court.

ur-whale 7y ago
Wow. I didn't know that. Sounds like a recipe for disaster. I thought England self-styled itself a "democracy", but it looks like putting together kangaroo courts is ridiculously easy over there.
- matthewheath 7y ago
  Respectfully, I disagree. This case was heard by a magistrate, the "Tier 1" of the judicial system. There are multiple levels of appeal available after the initial hearing is concluded. Magistrates in this scenario (dealing with extradition matters) sit alone so yes, it is theoretically possible to have a "kangaroo court" at first instance, however if the judge was unreasonable or erred in law or fact, it would be swiftly corrected by the High Court (Queen's Bench Division - Criminal) or the Supreme Court by way of appeal. These two courts sit as a panel. The High Court typically has three judges on the bench, while the Supreme Court has 11. It is theoretically easy to influence a single judge; it is much harder to inappropriately influence three or 11 to get a majority verdict in your favour. There are no suggestions that the judge here was improperly influenced and if they were, they would be subject to disciplinary proceedings by the Office for Judicial Conduct. It goes without saying that the case would also be ruled a mistrial and another judge would handle it all over again. As a future British lawyer, I don't see what filming the proceedings would bring to the judicial system in terms of legitimacy. Court transcripts are publicly available, anyone can come to the hearings (unless it's a closed session which is rare) and report on the events. Justice is seen to be done, and filming appears largely inappropriate for the vast majority of cases proceeding through the judicial system in my opinion.

ur-whale 7y ago

Wow. I didn't know that. Sounds like a recipe for disaster. I thought England self-styled itself a "democracy", but it looks like putting together kangaroo courts is ridiculously easy over there.

matthewheath 7y ago
Respectfully, I disagree. This case was heard by a magistrate, the "Tier 1" of the judicial system. There are multiple levels of appeal available after the initial hearing is concluded. Magistrates in this scenario (dealing with extradition matters) sit alone so yes, it is theoretically possible to have a "kangaroo court" at first instance, however if the judge was unreasonable or erred in law or fact, it would be swiftly corrected by the High Court (Queen's Bench Division - Criminal) or the Supreme Court by way of appeal. These two courts sit as a panel. The High Court typically has three judges on the bench, while the Supreme Court has 11. It is theoretically easy to influence a single judge; it is much harder to inappropriately influence three or 11 to get a majority verdict in your favour. There are no suggestions that the judge here was improperly influenced and if they were, they would be subject to disciplinary proceedings by the Office for Judicial Conduct. It goes without saying that the case would also be ruled a mistrial and another judge would handle it all over again. As a future British lawyer, I don't see what filming the proceedings would bring to the judicial system in terms of legitimacy. Court transcripts are publicly available, anyone can come to the hearings (unless it's a closed session which is rare) and report on the events. Justice is seen to be done, and filming appears largely inappropriate for the vast majority of cases proceeding through the judicial system in my opinion.