Court reporting has an uncertain future but is vital to democracy and making the justice system public. And it’s the best job on a paper, Sian Harrison reports


Eyes on the law C


ourt reporting remains largely unchanged since Charles Dickens first wrote dispatches from the Doctors’ Commons, where the will disputes of the day were heard. Reporters still have to take a shorthand note – recording is


generally not permitted – and summarise proceedings ‘fairly, accurately and contemporaneously’ in order to fulfil their role as the ‘eyes and ears’ of the public. But is this long-established form of reporting in crisis?


Big-ticket cases involving Hollywood stars, WAGs and occasionally royalty may draw journalists to court in numbers, drive traffic to websites and dominate the news agenda. But rapid changes in how we consume news have led to a steep decline in the volume of specialist court reporting carried by media organisations. The rise of social media has allowed misinformation about our justice system to proliferate in the gap. Increasing reliance on police press releases and the ever-more complex logistics of covering courts have contributed to some outlets not sending reporters to court as often, if at all. Added to that is a sharp drop in the number of trainee


journalists learning shorthand (as well as available tutors). Court reporting is no longer a compulsory module for accreditation and there is a reluctance among some younger journalists and trainees to be exposed to the grim reality of most court hearings. These factors all contribute to a sense that the future of court reporting hangs in the balance.


The decline Court reports were once the bread and butter of newspapers, with round-ups of local crimes and shocking cases that gripped the nation regularly filling pages. However, as the economic model of the industry has suffered death by a thousand cuts, court reporting has been scaled back dramatically. The emptying of the press benches was brought home most starkly in a study by former journalist turned academic Brian Thornton at the University of Winchester, who found that, from 2012 to 2016, court reporting in England and Wales had dropped by 30 per cent in the national press and 40 per cent in regionals. In 2018, Lord Igor Judge, a former lord chief justice, described this decline as a threat to the justice system. The same year, the Cairncross review highlighted the stark reality facing court reporting and made a number of recommendations, including the expansion of the BBC’s Local Democracy Reporting Service, which is administered by regional press groups. However, former director general Tim Davie’s announcement earlier this year that the service


08 | theJournalist “


would, some seven years later, be expanded, did not include any mention of courts and some commercial publishers argue such an expansion would reduce exclusivity. For my own part, having spent several years covering the


majority of the cases heard in the criminal division of the court of appeal, I realised some years ago that serious crimes (including murder cases) were going uncovered by regional news outlets, leaving our agency’s coverage to act as a safety net – one that is sadly no longer there.


State power and visible justice To fully appreciate what has been lost already, it’s important to understand why court reporting matters at all. Many journalists will be familiar with philosopher Jeremy


Bentham’s observation that: “Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity.” Open justice is more than a lofty legal ideal – it is integral to the concept that, for justice to be done, it most be seen to be done. The day-to-day traffic of the criminal courts, with its roster of murderers, drug dealers, robbers and rapists, is the most familiar aspect of court reporting to both journalists and the public and fulfils an important function. We see the justice system in action, lengthy sentences act as a deterrent and victims are given a voice. But the work of the civil, family and coroners’ courts also plays a key part in informing the public of the operation of the justice system and wider societal issues, and those courts are not as well covered. Journalists who regularly attend courts and develop skills,


knowledge and good instincts are able to spot patterns, such as a rise in a particular type of crime, and dig into root causes. Also, court reporting has a democratic function in


Fewer journalists in court means no one is there to stand up and argue if a stray reporting restriction is imposed


scrutinising state power, the judiciary and the rule of law. Jeremy Britton, the BBC’s stalwart producer at the Old Bailey, neatly summed up the importance and integral nature of court reporting in a farewell speech as he left his role after nearly 30 years. Referring to the inkwells that remain in the press benches (but no longer used), he said: “They mark the start of the court reporting story and show how our presence has been ingrained into the very fabric of the building for more than a century. As long as court reporters continue to sit here, report proceedings and break verdicts then the future should hold no fear.”


Unintended consequences However, for those picking up the baton, there are reasons to be fearful. A push towards digitisation of the justice system, while necessary and some would say long overdue, has had unintended consequences for court reporting. Tristan Kirk, the London Evening Standard’s dedicated court reporter, won last


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24