The trials of Levi Bellfield, Steve Wright, Mark Dixie and of terrorists linked to a UK terror training camp have dominated the news agenda in recent weeks. In all these trials there was a strong public interest case for allowing the broadcast of the sentencing process — for public information, for deterrence, for those who could not attend court. But in none of them could the public watch the judge impose sentence or see its impact on the accused.

This month it is three years exactly since the end of the public consultation on Broadcasting Courts by the Department for Constitutional Affairs (now the Ministry of Justice). So far no formal conclusion has been announced; but it was reported in The Times in October and again last week that some filming is likely to go ahead in the supreme court when it takes over from the law lords in October.

Televising court proceedings arouses strong emotions. There are fears that the trial process would be sensationalised, witnesses and victims deterred and that it would be unfair to the defendant. But there is also a strong counter-argument, backed by issues of openness and transparency. Moreover, is it appropriate that television, a medium from which most of the public gain their information, cannot show how the judicial process works?

If filming is allowed in the supreme court, that would not be a significant change. The consultation stated that since 1989 the law lords could be filmed like other proceedings in Parliament and a clause in the Bill setting up the court allowed filming “to replicate the existing arrangements”.

Broadcasting the courts is not an all-or-nothing issue. Fifty-eight per cent of those answering the consultation were in favour of filming the sentencing of defendants, or at least in some circumstances. A appropriate case would be the sentencing of Bellfield, who was not in court to hear his own sentence.

As it stands, the legal system provides for those in court — lawyers, judge, reporters, relatives attending and those sitting in the public gallery. They see the sentencing first-hand. But what of those who want to see the sentencing but choose not to attend court — for example, a relative or victim too traumatised to sit in court? They have to rely on text versions in a newspaper or a report outside court on TV news, usually a summary of what is said, and they do not get to see what happened.

There are sensitivities surrounding filming the courts and the case for changing the law still deserves consideration. But what if the cameras were allowed just to film sentencing — no footage of victims, families, witnesses, the jury? Or some sound or audio recording of the sentencing could be considered, if filming were not allowed. From the perspective of judges and justice ministers, the impact of sentencing would be all the greater if the public could see the process. Seeing the real thing matters: it has impact.

Another credible option would be to allow some filming in the Court of Appeal where juries do not sit and evidence is not usually given in court. Fifty-six per cent of those responding to the consultation said filming in criminal cases in the Court of Appeal should be allowed or at least in some circumstances.

It has already been done — with success. Alongside the public consultation, a pilot study took place allowing broadcasters (BBC, ITV, Channel 4, ITN, Five and Sky) to film the proceedings. The judge was in control of the filming and could stop it at any time. The cameras were small, no extra lighting was needed and the court’s sound system was used.

The filming adopted the model used to film Parliament. The exercise was funded by the broadcasters. At the end a film was produced for the DCA but could not be shown publicly.

Many countries allow some filming in court. The public here have seen on TV recently inside courts in Greece, France, the US, South Africa, China, Israel, Spain, Russia, Germany, a Sharia court in Nigeria, Thailand. Australia, Canada, Scotland and New Zealand also allow some filming under controlled circumstances. Interestingly the debate is increasingly moving on from television to the internet.

There are safeguards — broadcasters are subject to controls under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and filming would have to be the decision of judges who should should always have the final say on whether filming takes place in their court.

A formal announcement is still to come. But given the pilot and the consultation, it must now be time to give the public a greater glimpse into our courts.

The author is head of compliance at ITN and a barrister. He was part of the broadcasting group for the Court of Appeal pilot study

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones