United States In the US, photography and broadcasting is permitted in some courtrooms but not in others. Some argue that use of media during courtroom proceedings presents a mockery of the judicial system, though the issue has been contested at length. There are concerns that the presentation and consideration of evidence may be affected by the presence of cameras influencing the behavior of court participants. Many famous trials, such as the
O.J. Simpson murder trial, were televised. In the wake of the O.J. trial, however, many judges decided to ban cameras from their courtrooms. Immediately after that trial,
California Governor Pete Wilson announced his opposition to televised trials, and he later asked the
Judicial Council to consider reinstituting the ban on film and electronic media coverage of criminal trials. It has been argued, however, that the Simpson case was an anomaly that has little relation to the everyday concerns of media coverage of the criminal justice system.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 states, "Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom." However, some federal courtrooms experimented with cameras from 1991 to 1994. The courts have thus far been unwilling to overturn the ban on cameras, citing "concerns with expenditure of judicial time on administration and oversight of broadcasting; the necessity of sequestering juries so that they will not look at the television program of the trial itself; the difficulty in empaneling an impartial jury in the case of a retrial; the necessity of larger jury panels or increased use of marshals; the psychological effects on witnesses, jurors, lawyers, and judges; and related considerations of 'solemnity,' 'dignity,' and the like." In 1996, Justice
David Souter said, "The day you see a camera come into our courtroom it’s going to roll over my dead body."
U.S. Senator Arlen Specter has proposed televising U.S. Supreme Court proceedings. The
Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, introduced by
Charles Grassley, would "authorize the presiding judge of a
U.S. appellate court or
U.S. district court to permit the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising to the public of court proceedings over which that judge presides." The
Senate Judiciary Committee has recommended that it be considered by the Senate as a whole. In 1965, the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled, "The television industry, like other institutions, has a proper area of activities and limitations beyond which it cannot go with its cameras. That area does not extend into an American courtroom. On entering that hallowed sanctuary, where the lives, liberty and property of people are in jeopardy, television representatives have only the rights of the general public, namely, to be present, to observe the proceedings, and thereafter, if they choose, to report them." In the 1981 case
Chandler v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that televising trials does not, per se, violate
due process. Although the
U.S. Constitution contains a
public trial clause, it has been argued that the requirement of a public trial was created and satisfied when there were no broadcasters or telecasters and few newspapers. In some cases,
jury deliberations have been publicly broadcast. There have been two pilot programs that allowed cameras in civil proceedings in certain federal courts. Two appellate courts and six district courts participated in 1991–1994, and fourteen district courts participated in 2011–2015. the three district courts in the
Ninth Circuit are continuing the pilot program. Recording requires the approval of the presiding judge and the consent of the parties. Since 1955, the U.S. Supreme Court has made audio recordings of all its proceedings, which have been released more quickly over time. During the
COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, the court started allowing the public to listen in real time.
United Kingdom in court in 1912 being sentenced to death in 1912 by
Mr Justice Bucknill; the only known photograph of the death sentence being passed in an English court Photography and broadcasting of a
Crown Court case in the United Kingdom was illegal from 1925 until June 2020 per code 41 of the
Criminal Justice Act and the
Contempt of Court Act. In 2004, a small number of cases in the Court of Appeal were filmed in a trial basis. Other courts have begun to allow photography and filming in the early 21st century; the
Supreme Court has permitted filming since 2009 while the Court of Appeal has allowed it on a regular basis since 2013. The second trial in 2012 for the
Murder of Arlene Fraser in the
High Court of Justiciary was later broadcast on Channel 4. In June 2020, the
Crown Court (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2020 was passed. According to the Ministry of Justice, filming in the Crown Court is expected to commence as soon as practicable after recovery from COVID-19 disruption. Only the judge will be filmed, recording only sentencing remarks in serious high-profile criminal cases, as was the case with the
sentencing of Ben Oliver in July 2022. Russell Causley, who was convicted of the
murder of his first wife Carole, may be the first person to have a
public parole hearing in October 2022. Some disadvantages of televised trials, from the point of view of the media, are that the proceedings are static visually, consume large amounts of
TV crew time, and are sometimes difficult for the viewers to understand.
Australia The High Court of Australia has started allowing video recordings of Full Court proceedings, since 1 October 2013. In its press release explaining this step, the High Court made the point that "[its] decision to take these steps was made having regard to the nature of its jurisdiction and is not intended to set any precedent for other courts". The High Court of Australia is the highest court in the Australian judicial system.
Ukraine Since 2014, Ukraine has allowed videotaping of court sessions without obtaining the specific permission of the judge, within the limitations established by law. In 2015 the Open Court Project launched with the aim of videotaping court proceedings in civil, commercial, administrative cases. The Open Court Project has videotaped over 7000 court cases in courts at different levels. The videos are stored, indexed and published in the public domain. In 2017 NGO Open Ukraine has launched the VR Court Project aimed at videotaping court sessions with 3D 360 degree portable video cameras to create VR video records of court sessions.
Brazil In Brazil, each court decides if a court session can be photographed or broadcast. The Brazilian
Supreme Federal Court and
Superior Electoral Court broadcasts all its proceedings in real time since 2002 by its TV channel
TV Justiça, as well on its
YouTube channel. Many Brazilian state courts also allow their sessions to be broadcast. ==Controversy==