Why do I feel uneasy about cameras covering court sentencing?

It's been decided that the sentencing of Suzanne Pilley's murderer, David Gilroy, will be filmed and the footage released to the media in the interests of openness and transparency.

This is something that's been welcomed by Willie Rennie, who said:

“By televising this, people like Gilroy, who have been found guilty of such a shocking crime, will face a day of reckoning. The public will be able to see justice being done.”

I kind of see his point, but I also feel very uneasy about it and I'm not sure why.

We would know what the Judge said to him, because it would be reported verbatim in the press, immediately, so there is already that element of transparency there.

I guess to see Lord Bracadale actually saying the words would make it a lot more real, but it seems a bit intrusive, nonetheless. He will doubtless outline to Gilroy the heinousness of his crime, exacerbated by his refusal to say where he buried Suzanne before telling him how long he'll serve. I'm not sure how Suzanne's friends and family would feel about that, though, and what would happen in future cases. Every case is different and every family reacts in a different way.

I was wondering if I was just being a luddite and I've always been caustic about establishment types who complained about the televising, or You Tubing, of Parliamentary proceedings. I certainly wouldn't want to count myself in with the people who objected to the Queen's coronation being televised because men would watch it in public houses with their hats on. This is different, though. Every single crime has a very personal consequence for somebody. In this case it involves bereavement and loss and the ending of a young life. A national celebration, or a Parliamentary Debate are not the same thing.

I know that the camera will only show the Judge's face and not the accused, or the public. Is this the start of a slippery slope which will end up with Scottish Courts being televised like American ones where murder cases are dramatically sensationalised? I'm not so sure it's that healthy to watch a murder trial on tv like the OJ Simpson trial, just to see what happens. It feels disrespectful to the victims and I think some distance is warranted. Also, I don't think I'd really want to see somebody in great distress giving evidence about a crime they'd witnessed or experienced.

Maybe my unease is partly because the justice system does have to stay extremely rational to work. Bringing emotion into it with tv cameras brings inconsistency which could render it unjust.

I certainly don't think that this development is the end of the world and I know that we are relatively unusual in  having such wide ranging reporting restrictions on court cases. Compare and contrast with Italy, though, where Amanda Knox was made out pretty much to be the bride of Satan ahead of her trial. How do you find an unbiased jury in these circumstances?

I may be conflating different issues here, but I just don't think that this is something we should necessarily welcome with open arms. For a justice system to work, people need to have confidence in it. I'm not sure that  filming a judge give a sentence actually adds to that when we can all read his judgement in full when it's released.

Review: ITV's The Jury

I am a complete sucker for a good courtroom drama. Lunchtimes during the school holidays when I was a little girl would find me avidly watching Crown Court. There was always that moment of drama on a Friday when The Verdict was declared.  I just wish they'd bring it back - it'd surely give Doctors a run for its money. Not, of course, that I watch that. In fact, when I was in the gym today over lunch time, I chose, as usual, to watch the BBC News Channel while I huffed and puffed on treadmill, bike and cross trainer.

If it's a historical courtroom drama, so much the better. I remember Shadow of the Noose way back in the 90s, telling the story of Edward Marshall-Hall, a famous barrister of the day. I was, of course, delighted to see the return of Garrow's Law last weekend, and not just for wigs and breeches. It's probably worth pointing out, though, that I'm so used to the terminology of the English legal system and very unfamiliar with how Scottish courts operate. We don't have manslaughter up here, it's culpable homicide and we also still have a not proven verdict which last attracted major controversy earlier this year when it was used in the trial of the man who assaulted Celtic manager Neil Lennon.

Last week ITV ran a drama called The Jury over five nights.  It portrayed the re-trial of Alan Lane, whose conviction for the murder of three women was taking place amid a backdrop of a parliamentary attempt to remove the right to trial by jury. The interspersed fictional clips of Today programme interviews and news headlines gave a potted summary of the issues - and it's worth remembering that The events focused on the Jury in the trial and was meant to dramatically illustrate why the system was rubbish. In just five hours of drama, developing the character of 12 jurors is well nigh impossible. There's the woman who's fed up of being left at home alone for weeks on end as her husband goes abroad on business. Then there's the Sudanese refugee desperate to go to the US who's befriended by a rich, retired Jury colleague. The friendship that developed between them was very well done. There's the woman who's feeling constantly sick and the one who shouldn't really be there at all. And who is the mysterious woman hanging around the court room?

I was called for jury service a few years ago but had to defer due to childcare issues. Now that I don't have to worry quite so much about that, I would really love for the envelope to drop through my door summoning me into Edinburgh. Knowing my luck, it'll arrive for a time when I'm on holiday, or just before an election, or the like. It's such a responsibility, but one I think I'd be able to do properly. Someone said on Twitter the other night that they wouldn't be able to cope with a trial where someone had been hurt. It would be horrific, but still, justice needs to be done. There is absolutely no point in locking the wrong person up.

I thought the scenes when the jury were deliberating in this were actually pretty good. You knew all that was going on in their lives so you'd wonder how on earth they'd be able to put that all aside and get on with the job.

I cringed at some technical errors, but then I'm a pedant. The visa application process at the US embassy was so unrealistic that it took the series into the realms of fantasy. Apart from that, though, it was well made, with good use of flashbacks to illustrate the detail.

The absolute standout performance for me, and the reason I'd recommend that you sit down with some popcorn and watch this on the ITV Player, is Julie Walters' portrayal of defence barrister Emma Watts. She had a good script to work with, and the prosecuting guy was a bit of a caricature, but she did a brilliant job. She was persuasive and passionate and I could have listened to her all day. I'd like to see more of that character in action.

The climax was quite shocking for all sorts of reasons that I'm not going to give away. Watching this will be five hours well spent, and you can do so on the ITV/STV player here for another few weeks.

What's more important - Justice or Location? #sp4 #echr

I feel a bit nervous writing about the law when people like LPW and Love and Garbage, who do actually know what they are talking about, do it so much better. However I thought it might be interestingto put  forward the perspective of a non legal person on this business about the UK Supreme Court hearing appeals on Scottish cases which relate to the European Court of Human Rights for the whole of the UK.

Scotland has long been proud of its independent legal system, and nobody is suggesting that we should be subsumed by English law. The issue is how Scots gain access to the ECHR system. What Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill want is for us to have to go all the way to Strasbourg to put our case.

Imagine if you will that I am languishing in jail, convicted of an unspecified crime against literacy or something, and I think my human rights have been breached. So I go along to the Scottish High Court of Justiciary and they tell me to get lost. In very long legal words, but that's what they mean. I still think I have a case, so I decide to pursue it through the European Court of Human Rights.  Now, before 2008, I'd have had to go all the way to Strasbourg. That's a long way away, and the costs would be crippling. Not just the proverbial arm and leg, but most of my internal organs and probably my firstborn too. And cases from 26 other countries also need to fit into the ECHR timetable, so I could go on languishing in jail for years before my case is even heard.

But, since 2008, I have to go, not to Strasbourg, initially, but through the UK Supreme Court in London. That's because it's the UK that's the member state of the EU. This court has judges from all across the UK, and we're back to it costing just the arm and leg and maybe a couple of internal organs. And it's also going to be able to hear my case a lot quicker, so I could be out of jail sooner if I win.

And, it's not as if the UK Supreme Court is going to operate in a different  way than the ECHR in Strasbourg. When the judges rule, they have to use ECHR jurisprudence, not English or Scots law, so it's pretty much the same, except cheaper and quicker, as going to Strasbourg.

I felt very uneasy when I saw Alex Salmond's reaction to the Nat Fraser case the other day. He seemed more bothered by a London based intervention than by the fact that someone in Scotland's human rights hadn't been met. I don't know too much of the ins and outs of the Nat Fraser case, but from what I can gather, his conviction was quashed because the defence was not given access to evidence that the prosecution had. That doesn't seem fair to me.  I don't know enough about how the system works to know whether it was just in this one case that a mistake was made, or whether there is something systemic we need to look at. The last major case that the ECHR (via London) did was to rule in the Cadder case that suspects should have access to legal advice before being interviewed by Police. I was surprised to be honest that they didn't, but what do I know? Clearly I've watched too many episodes of The Bill. I just know, though, that if I were ever interviewed by the Police, I'd incriminate myself through pure nerves, even though I'd be completely innocent. I'd want someone professional there to make sure I was being treated fairly and to advise me.

Anyway, the substance of these two decisions to me seems to be consistent with human rights, and if we're found to be wanting in that department, surely we should sort it out? That's not to attack our legal system, but none of them are perfect. We should always be aspiring to ensure that we are as just and fair as possible. It also seems to me that if the decision was made on ECHR guidelines, then the ECHR if it had been sitting in Strasbourg, would have said exactly the same thing, except in a few more years' time and having cost a lot more money.

When I saw Alex Salmond's comments about this in the wake of the Nat Fraser judgment, my heart sank a bit. The First Minister said:

“Before devolution, the House of Lords had no jurisdiction whatever in matters of Scots criminal law. The increasing involvement of the UK Supreme Court in second-guessing Scotland’s highest criminal court of appeal is totally unsatisfactory.”

To me, that seems that the SNP are letting their prejudice against anything based in London cloud their judgement. They don't seem to have any problem with being in ECHR, so why should it matter to them if ECHR cases are decided in London or Strasbourg. At least the UK Supreme Court has 2 Scottish judges on it. That apparently is not good enough for Kenny MacAskill, though. Those judges are not the right kind of judges was what he pretty much had to say on this morning's Good Morning Scotland. Strewth!

I just find it all incredibly depressing - rather than look at the practicalities of the situation, the SNP, for its own narrow agenda, chooses to pick an unnecessary fight just to try and give it more leverage as it argues for independence.

We're going to have 5 years of this. What should matter is justice, and that Scots can be confident that they are going to get a fair trial, with all their rights complied with. The bottom line is that we have to comply with ECHR. The SNP want an independent Scotland to stay in ECHR. Why on earth are they making all this fuss.

Willie Rennie, the new Scottish Liberal Democrat leader, has slammed the SNP's stance. In an outspoken attack on the SNP plans, he said:

“This is more about anglophobia than Scottish nationalism. The SNP’s logic is totally warped. Removing the role of the UK Supreme Court on which two top Scottish judges sit will push human rights appeals straight to Strasbourg. "While discussion on how we make and execute the law in a fairer and better way should always be an open dialogue, the motives and purposes must be right. "This is not the case here. Instead we have the grandstanding SNP, jumping on any bandwagon that will further their causes for independence. ‘Anywhere but London’ is the mantra that the SNP will continue to cultivate no matter what the negative results and consequences are for Scotland. “These flawed plans will instead see appeals from Scotland going direct to Strasbourg and subsequently being hit with delays, red tape, cost and in the end being heard in the European Court without a single Scottish Judge present. This undermines the whole SNP argument. “The future of the legal system in Scotland must not be based on SNP posturing."

Update: Love and Garbage has read this and I am literally glowing from the fact that a proper lawyer said he enjoyed my post. However, there's one correction he's suggesting. 

One wee correction. While Supreme Court was set up recently the appeal from the High Court of Justiciary was introduced in 1999 with the Scotland Act. At that point appeals were made to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, staffed by exactly the same judges that staffed the House of Lords. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom rationalised the two regimes into one. I enjoyed your post. Once my current chaotic workload is up I will try to post something on it. In the meantime it might be worth having a look at the stuff on The Firm's website from mike Dailly and others.


Update 2: Scott mentioned The Firm's website and Mike Dailly in his tweet above. It's here, and there's some good stuff on it. Mike Dailly is the Principal Solicitor of Govan Law Centre, an organisation which helps the poorest people access the law.  He says in his article Justice Lite that only the very wealthy in Scotland can now access the law, something which chimed with me. I particularly liked this quote:

Whereas the SNP administration debate 'independence lite' as a paradigm to divvy up political power from the UK to Scotland, Alex Salmond's 'justice lite' can never work because you cannot divvy up justice. You either have it or you don't. 

Scrapping the UKSC for Scots would put party political politics before the people of Scotland, and ideology before access to justice. 

Paul Clarke: Punished for doing the right thing?

I don't know where on earth I was last weekend but apparently there was a bit of a Twitterstorm about Paul Clarke. I'd never heard of him until loveandgarbage mentioned it last night. I thought at first he was an old Big Brother contestant - remember Paul and Helen, anyone?

Every so often we bloggers get all hot under the collar about stupid things happening, about authority being exercised excessively and unjustly, just for the sake of it. A while ago, I got very exercised about Government plans to register anyone who comes in contact with children and the ridiculous intervention of OFSTED into individual childcare arrangements. Then around the same time we had the completely nonsensical and offensive refusal of Morrisons supermarket to sell a bottle of booze to a woman in case she gave it to her seventeen year old daughter. I mean, where's Esther Rantzen and her Jobsworth award when you need her?

What these three things have in common is that they cause a bit of inconvenience to people. What's happened to Paul Clarke is much more sinister.

Basically, he found a sawn off shotgun that someone had dumped in his garden so he did the decent thing and took it to the police station to hand it in as reported here. It would not be unreasonable to expect the Police Officer on duty to take it off your hands and be a bit relieved that one less gun was on the streets. But, no. Instead, Paul Clarke was arrested and the book thrown at him because, apparently, just being in possession of a gun is an offence punishable with a minimum. Yes, that's s statutory minimum, although there is a chance that the sentencing judge could decide there are exceptional circumstances to allow a lesser penalty.

Jennie, whose head clearly wasn't full of mince like mine was at the weekend, wrote this post, reminding us of that sinister phrase Labour ministers are unnaturally fond of "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear." Paul Clarke is finding out that this is not the case.

The main reason for doing this post, however was to let you see this brilliant post by someone who really knows about legal matters, going through the entire legal process and making some very salient points about how things could have been different. He also pointed out the contribution of the Liberal Democrats in arguing against minimum sentencing for all sorts of reasons.

This is well worth a read, and puts some very complicated legalese into language that even I can understand.

I hope common sense prevails in this case because it would be a terrible injustice to imprison someone for five years for basically doing their civic duty. It hardly enocurages anyone else to do the same, does it?

I'm also assuming that Scots Law is more sensible and that something like this couldn't happen up here. Anyone care to correct me on that one?