WHETHER to allow cameras to film court proceedings will be an issue for whichever party is in government after the general election. After the Department for Constitutional Affairs’ Broadcasting Courts Consultation Paper and the pilot study in the Court of Appeal, a decision on whether to change the law is awaited with great interest.

The film produced by the broadcasters from the pilot study is now with the DCA. The footage is historic, being the first of court proceedings in England and Wales. It is not for public viewing but will be seen by politicians, judges and lawyers to help to decide whether to change the law.

The film — produced by the BBC, ITN, Sky, Channel 4, Five and ITV — shows the sort of report that would be broadcast if filming were allowed in court. For example, Channel 4 News and ITV News produced reports on the appeal in the OK! v Hello! case about the wedding photographs of Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas.

The BBC produced a hypothetical half-hour programme showing civil and criminal appeal cases. Sky produced reports including a civil judgment and an appeal against conviction suitable for broadcast on a rolling news channel.

Instead of seeing the usual court sketches or computer graphics, For example James Price, QC, and Desmond Browne, QC, are seen addressing the bench on privacy, and in criminal appeals counsel and judges are seen debating why a conviction should or should not be overturned.

So what was learnt? For a start, cameras had little effect on the proceedings. They were hardly visible in court and there were no cameramen, extra lighting or tripods. Any fears that lawyers would “grandstand” proved unfounded. Straight away the cameras became a natural part of the court.

The pilot study showed that judicial control is central to the issue of cameras in court. The decision on filming must be for the judge, not the parties, as happens in Scotland, or broadcasters. The judge can hear representations from interested parties and make restrictions if deemed appropriate. It is not really that different from what already happens when judges make reporting restrictions.

As well as news and documentary use, it was clear that the footage could be useful as an educational resource for schools, universities and professional training or for informing jurors, witnesses or parties about what will happen in court.

The model used for the study was also a success. A protocol drawn up by the DCA required the cameras to focus on the lawyers and judges, not the parties. A camera-free area was marked out for anyone who did not want to be filmed. There was also a judicial “red button” to stop filming, such as when discussing a public interest immunity certificate.

On the technical side, the quality of the footage was generally good even though no extra lighting was added. But the sound system would need improving — significant ambient noise, such as rustling of paper, was picked up by the microphones.

Overall, it was not that different from the filming of Parliament — another formal setting subject to a protocol. Broadcasters’ experience there transferred well into the Court of Appeal. As in Parliament an independent company, appointed and paid for by the broadcasters, operated the cameras, and they did not zoom about — they followed who was speaking.

With hindsight the pilot study would have benefited from being allowed some filming of the defendant — after all, this footage was never going to be broadcast. In New Zealand, where some trials are broadcast, the defendant can usually be filmed for the first 15 minutes of the trial and at sentencing or at any time the defendant consents.

The pilot study in the Court of Appeal should be seen in its historical context. A Bar Council report in 1989 recommended the introduction of cameras. Since then inquiries such as Shipman and Hutton have allowed broadcasting of part of the proceedings.

Television technology has become more familiar in the courts, such as video links to take evidence. There are also developments abroad — many jurisdictions now allow some filming of court proceedings.

So where does the issue go from here? There is no obvious step forward other than a change in the law. The arguments for allowing filming in the Court of Appeal are particularly strong. There are few witnesses and no jury. Filming the Court of Appeal would mean that the public would actually see cases of public importance.

The real issue may be whether to allow the filming of trials. The broadcasters believe that no court should be completely “off limits”.

Some cases in the High Court lend themselves easily to filming — judicial review cases for example. The legal challenge to the Hunting Act was the sort of case suitable for broadcast.

Where sensitivities understandably arise is with criminal trials. Obviously witnesses must not be discouraged from coming forward. However, filming the Crown Court should not be argued on the basis of “film all or nothing”. Some parts of a criminal case could be broadcast without affecting witnesses, such as sentencing or the opening and closing statements.

The pilot study has demonstrated that cameras can film in court without affecting the proceedings and that broadcasters have a responsible approach. There is now a real opportunity for change that would bring open justice to a new level. The time is right to move forward.

The author is head of compliance at ITN and a barrister. He is a member of the broadcasters’ group for the pilot study

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers