Tom Smith, Marcus Keppel-Palmer (both Law), Sally Reardon and Bernhard Gross (both Journalism) recently published their initial analysis of the first 12 months of televised sentencing of criminal courts in England and Wales. Since July 2022, sentencing remarks by judges in Crown Court criminal trials have been filmed and broadcast; yet, despite Government comments lauding this major shift in access to courts, there has yet to be any official evaluation of the benefits, which have been assumed without question. As such, the UWE research team sought to analyse the first year of broadcasting (covering the period July 2022 to July 2022), assessing the types of cases televised and their media usage, with the aim of exploring whether this has in fact contributed to the principle of open justice in a meaningful way.
Overall, they concluded that – notwithstanding any theoretical benefits – the broadcasts offer a unique but limited view of the workings of criminal courts, falling short of the advancements claimed by some officials. Only 33 cases were filmed and uploaded to the ‘Sky News – Courts’ YouTube channel (the public repository for broadcasts), a small fraction of the total number of eligible cases in the first year. Moreover, this low number wasn’t due to refusals to allow filming; broadcast media made only 34 requests to broadcast, with one rejection by a court, indicating a highly selective approach to reporting (akin to the traditional visibility of physical courts through media reporting).
Broadcast cases generally involved extremely serious violence, with two-thirds being homicides, and victims mainly young or elderly. The researchers argue that this significantly skews the potential of broadcasting towards traditional news values (which focus on extreme and sensational crime); and failing to reflect the reality of most criminality, with implications for public understanding and awareness. Additionally, the argument that the public’s understanding of the actual processes of justice would be improved by broadcasting is questionable; only sentencing remarks were filmed, omitting most aspects of criminal justice processes (such as the trial itself) and excluding Magistrates’ Courts – where most crime is dealt with.
Overall, the researchers suggest that broadcasting hasn’t significantly expanded open justice. The portrayal of crime and sentencing remains focused on severe cases and lifelong imprisonment, ignoring common crimes like intimate partner violence, theft, assault, white-collar crimes, and drug offences. Of the 33 cases filmed, over half were not used in TV news bulletins, and only eight appeared in this key conduit for public awareness of current events. Usage of filmed footage by broadcast media was generally minimal, with excerpts often being short clips that failed to provide context, despite often lengthy sentencing remarks by judges. The media have therefore maintained a traditional approach to reporting on criminal courts, using brief clips with graphic descriptions and emotive language. YouTube views were modest, with only two videos surpassing 100,000 views, questioning the true expansion of open justice.
While broadcasts theoretically reveal previously unseen processes and are publicly accessible, their limited and selective nature restricts their impact. Cases selected for broadcast were similar to those covered using traditional methods, arguably doing little to enhance public understanding and engage interest in criminal proceedings in a realistic and representative manner. The researchers therefore concluded that future expansion in broadcasting – which seems inevitable – must go beyond merely changing the medium, and meaningfully extend open justice to truly reflect the reality of crime and justice processes.
UWE Academics Analyse televised sentencing of criminal courts
