Should TV cameras be allowed in court?

It’s not every day we get a good court room drama played out on our television - and it's for a good reason. Most of the day to day happenings in New Zealand courts are akin to being locked in an overheated room and forced to watch a four hour highlight reel of the Queen’s Christmas speeches.

Cameras in NZ courts since 1995

Droll, droll, droll. So when a murder trial pops up – it’s already news. If it involves a good looking farming family from friendly Fielding, then you know it’s going to be on the nightly news in heavy doses. I’m not saying it’s why the recent Ewen Macdonald murder trial got so much coverage, but it certainly helped. I’ve directed television in New Zealand – it’s not exactly a rich stomping ground for telegenic types who can answer a question on camera without the “yeah, but nah” signature sign off.


Sketch artist's impression inside court


When I started out as a reporter, those lovely sketch artists were gainfully employed.

Where are they now? Most likely working abroad, since New Zealand courts, unlike those in England and Wales, have allowed cameras to cover courtroom trials since 1995.

Prior to the mid 90s, court on television for us here in lil' ol' New Zealand was limited to shows like Judge Judy  and The People's Court . It was reality programming before reality TV was even a sign on a TV commissioner’s door. Then things changed and we joined a growing number of countries which allow cameras into court. Of course it’s not like the media can just wander into any old courtroom and start rolling – there’s red tape – hey, it’s the Ministry of Justice would you expect anything less? The rules are many and set out on the Ministry of Justice website. And as back up? Filming is always at the judge’s discretion. So why does The Law Society want to turf cameras out of our courts? President Jonathan Temm announced earlier this month that cameras should be banned to stop sensationalist and selective reporting.
 Justice Minister Judith Collins has promised a review. She cited the Scott Guy murder trial and the 'reality tv' style coverage. The argument that broadcasters can create this sensationalist and selective reporting is strange. I’ve worked in both print and on television. It’s all selective. That’s what we do, time and space dictate that. We can't go back to the days when The New Zealand Herald filled its inside pages with all the freaks and weirdos appearing in docks up and down the country. But I don't see how we can suddenly turn around and ostracise the television cameras?

C.P Scott, an editor at The Guardian once famously said early in the last century: “Television? The word is half Latin and half Greek. No good can come of it”. And in a 1936 The Listener editorial Rex Lambert said “Television won’t matter in your lifetime or mine.” Bold statements of the day that look a bit silly now!

In England, the move to get cameras into their courts has had a monumental shift this year. In April this year a single camera was allowed into Edinburgh's High Court to film the sentencing of David Gilroy. It was a legal first. Hearings in the UK's highest court, Westminster Supreme Court are already broadcast live. The Queen has now announced plans for a bill to lift the ban of cameras in court. She said: "The presence of cameras in our courtrooms will lead to greater public engagement and understanding of our legal system. We look forward to working closely with the judiciary and the government to ensure that justice will now truly be seen to be done." So as more worldwide courts polish the mahogany and allow cameras to roll, will New Zealand be one of the first countries to try and scrap idea? I hope not.