Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.
Only one in every 36 pound coins in circulation is fake, according to the Royal Mint – but in London it’s much higher than that, you’ll find two or three in a fistful of change. One of the cretins responsible for this corruption of our currency made history yesterday. Kevin Fisher from Goffs Oak, Herts, was the first to have his case televised live from court (page 9). He’s serving seven years for counterfeiting and was appealing his sentence. (Unsuccessfully, it turned out.) His QC, Alex Cameron, brother of our PM, became the first barrister to broadcast from inside an English courtroom after the 88-year ban on photography was lifted. Consideration is now being given to allowing cameras into criminal courts. Hello, 20th century!
We have been able to see justice being done all over the world, but not at home. Some in our judiciary oppose televised proceedings, fearing that broadcasters will gravitate towards the salacious and the gruesome, that lawyers and witnesses (and, dare we suggest it, a few judges) will showboat in pursuit of a television spectacle inconducive to justice.
But yesterday’s network premiere was, in the end, a dull affair, more typical of daily court life than the Judge Judy slapstick which we are accustomed to seeing on the box. While court cases must not become a new form of reality telly, it is within the boundaries of the human imagination to set rules that might allow the broadcasting of (say) judges’ summing-up and barristers’ opening and closing statements – thus protecting the anonymity of victims, witnesses and jurors, and sparing cross-examination further theatrics.
After TV, how about the internet? It’s taken the English judiciary 85 years since the first telly broadcast to let this wizard invention be used in court. So we can expect accurate, searchable court listings to be made available to the public online in 2076.
i@independent.co.uk
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments