More Courtroom Broadcasts on the Horizon
Written by Ted Culley - 13 July 2026
The UK has a few interesting, and uniquely fussy rules surrounding television broadcasting (with some of them being actual laws). Take the 9pm watershed rule for example; a rule which requires adult content, such as material containing sexual, graphic or distressing imagery, only be broadcast after 9pm and before 5:30am. The rationale being to protect children from unsuitable material. There’s also the 3pm football blackout which prevents football matches from being broadcast between 2:45pm and 5:15pm on Saturdays in an attempt to encourage attendance at lower league games. Both are surely seen by some to be defunct in an age where so much is readily accessible online.
In light of this, it’s hardly surprising that there are very real and stringent laws that prevent the recording, broadcasting, or the taking of photographs in courtrooms. It appears, however, that the tide is turning against this strict rationale, in hopes of making courtroom proceedings available to the public through broadcasts.
On the 22nd of May, the Ministry of Justice, the Judicial Office, and David Lammy (Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor) issued a joint press release outlining plans to expand the number of high-profile court cases being broadcast. The press release justifies this decision by arguing that “modernising” courts will lead to a “more transparent justice system.” Lammy argues that expanding broadcasting will bring the work of the UK justice system “closer to the public than ever before.”
The joint press release notes that broadcasting will be permitted in the Administrative Court. The sentencing remarks of the Chief Magistrate will also be broadcast live. A group has been set up in order to “explore how court broadcasting can be expanded further,” at the request of the Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr, and the Prime Minister. Currently, filming can only take place during the sentencing remarks of those cases being heard by a high court judge, senior circuit judge who is also a resident judge, senior circuit judge whose base court is the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) or a court of appeal judge sitting in the Crown Court.
A press conference given by Baroness Carr in February 2024 shone light on the long-term strategy for the reform of court broadcasting. In this press conference she explained that “the principle of open justice is front and centre” for her, and that “there is much to be done on transparency.” In the same press conference, however, the Lady Chief Justice also stressed that there would be a number of important things to look at when implementing court broadcasts. She asserted: “We want the best evidence from the witness, so we don't want the witness worrying about any more than they already have to worry about.” She also argued that the justice system would need to make sure that “nobody starts playing to the crowd,” and making sure that people “aren't watching for the wrong reasons … getting a kick out of somebody's distress and misery.”
A study by academics, Iñaki Garcia-Blanco and Lucy Bennett, examined 334 newspaper stories connected to the broadcasting of courtroom trials between 1986 and 2016. In this study they found that around 1 in 3 articles voiced concerns about participants playing to the crowd in a trial. It has been hypothesised that people’s perception of court broadcast was profoundly shaped by celebrity trials in countries where broadcasting in court is permitted, such as the United States and Italy. Perhaps the most influential was OJ Simpson’s1995 murder trial, which Blanco and Bennet believe had an “undeniable” effect on public opinion. This particular trial was largely described as a “media circus,” and those in the court room (judges and lawyers included) are widely regarded to have performed to the cameras.
There is also the argument that trial broadcasts could be plausibly edited in a way that is sensationalist and misleading, and this doesn’t appear to be a baseless worry. A 2024 report by the University of West England (UWE) found that a YouTube channel belonging to a popular news broadcaster (who was permitted to use footage filmed in court), prioritised publishing shocking and extreme cases of crime and often chose clips that failed to provide suitable context. This, the UWE report argues, creates a public image of justice that is neither representative nor realistic. UWE’s report also found that only half of the recorded court cases were actually uploaded to the YouTube channel, with around half of recording not even used in news bulletins. Those that did often did not generate as many views.
Increasing the level of courtroom broadcasting appears to be a step towards increasing transparency in the justice system, but there are also a number of sensible reasons for people to feel cautious about this increasing coverage. After all, it is not the only way to improve the transparency of the justice system.
Legal professionals have previously gone on record to suggest expanding the availability of certain documents which can be difficult for non-lawyers to obtain (such as witness statements or pleadings). There is also no central public resource where people can view caselaw reported decisions for the majority of lower court hearings and some tribunal decisions, as these are often given verbally and never transcribed.