Television cameras in the courts, no reform needed on assisted suicide and strong backing for the Human Rights Act 1998 — the new Director of Public Prosecutions has given a first taste of his views two months into the job.

Little surprise, perhaps, that Keir Starmer, QC, intends to build on the work of his predecessor, Sir Ken Macdonald, QC: if Sir Ken was an unexpected choice, coming from a defence lawyer’s background, Starmer — a human rights barrister from the radical Doughty Street chambers — is in the same mould.

At his first press briefing last week, before a speech to London Metropolitan University, he picked transparency and openness, human rights and quality for advocates (“my vision is of a set of publicly assured common standards for all advocates, in-house or external”) as his themes of office.

But Starmer, who is deliberative and less obviously combative than his predecessor, was not entirely predictable. He did not sound off against ministers’ plans for a super-database, tracking all internet and e-mail communications — preferring to wait to see the colour of the proposals later this month. Any invasion of privacy must have a defined purpose, be necessary and proportionate and have effective safeguards. He said: “If those features are in place it is obviously legitimate to collect data.”

Meanwhile, he reignited the debate on cameras in courts, saying that he had “no objection in principle to greater openness of court proceedings”, nor saw “any reason in principle why, in due course and with safeguards, there should not be some televising”.

Starmer, 46, said that he aimed to allow as much information as possible into the public domain, “consistent with the law and the sensitivities of the case” and practical arrangements. “The more the public knows about the way the criminal justice system works, the better for everyone.”

The long-running debate on TV in the courts has run aground and despite a successful pilot project in the Court of Appeal, ministers have taken no action. Senior judges continue to have reservations about filming criminal trials and the difficulties of protecting jurors and witnesses. Starmer said he was not advocating open season for all trials, but “in common with the principle of transparency I would not stand in principle against the televising of court proceedings”.

Since he took office he has had to decide whether to prosecute the parents of Daniel James, the paralysed rugby player who went to Switzerland with their help to end his life. He ruled out any action. The present law, Starmer insists, is workable, lending support to Gordon Brown, who has ruled out a change in the law. He added that his recent full explanation of his decision was the nearest thing to a statement of policy in this area. The case was the first, he added, where there had been enough evidence to prosecute and in which a DPP had to consider if prosecution was in the public interest.

He did not underestimate the anxiety that some people went through about whether they would face prosecution, he said, but the position of the Crown Prosecution Service was the same with assisted suicide as for every other offence: it “never has nor can it indicate in advance whether it will prosecute for specific conduct”.

If Parliament did change the law and clarify categories of offence then “that obviously means everyone is in a better position, but that is not in my gift, that is for Parliament”.

Human rights has been his bread and butter, and Starmer is a strong advocate of the Human Rights Act as a “constitutional instrument of the first importance” that he believes has worked well. Respect for, and protection of, human rights should be at the heart of a modern transparent prosecution service — rights of victims, of defendants and the rights of the media and public. The Act, under fire from some ministers as well as the Opposition, had brought rights for victims such as the right to have a case investigated properly. People, he said, “should not forget that”.

Starmer’s appointment has been well received among lawyers. His greater challenge is to keep the law-and-order lobby on side at the same time. But now his stall is well stocked with high principles that will no doubt serve him well in any crisis. “My vision,” he said, “is of a modern transparent prosecution service that engages in an open and honest way with the communities it services, which prosecutes cases firmly and effectively, but also fairly and which is publicly renowned both for the quality of its casework and high ethical standards it adheres to.”

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