Broadcasting Sentencing Remarks in the Crown Court

What changed?

The Crown Court (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2020 permits filming and broadcasting of sentencing remarks delivered by High Court Judges and Senior Circuit Judges in certain criminal cases. The aim is to help the public understand how sentencing decisions are made.

Before this change, only the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal allowed cameras. The Supreme Court authorised filming in 2009, followed by the Court of Appeal in 2013. John Battle, Head of Legal and Compliance at ITN, described the development as “a landmark moment for open justice”.

Who can film?

Only 3 authorised media organisations can apply to film sentencing remarks:

• BBC
• ITN
• Sky

No other party may film, broadcast or take photographs at any time.

Applications must be made to the judge, who decides whether filming is permitted and whether it can be broadcast live. Filming is restricted to:

• High Court Judges
• Senior Circuit Judges who are Resident Judges
• Senior Circuit Judges based at the Central Criminal Court

Retired High Court Judges cannot be filmed.

Only the judge and their sentencing remarks may be recorded. Defendants, victims, witnesses, jurors and court staff cannot be filmed. All usual reporting restrictions apply, and footage may need to be edited before broadcast.

How does the application process work?

Authorised media must apply at least 5 working days before the sentencing hearing. The judge makes a provisional decision at least 2 days before the hearing and a final decision on the day. Applications are considered outside court.

Neither the prosecution, defence nor victims can make representations. There is no right of appeal against the judge’s decision.

Broadcasters must upload footage to YouTube within 1 working day. It remains available until the conviction becomes spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

The first broadcast sentencing

On 22 July 2022, the sentencing of Ben Oliver at the Old Bailey became the first case broadcast in the United Kingdom. Oliver, aged 25 and affected by autism, pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his 74‑year‑old grandfather. Judge Sarah Munro’s sentencing remarks were broadcast live. Oliver received life imprisonment with a minimum term of 10 years and 8 months.

What about the defendant’s right to privacy?

Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett stated that open justice is important and that broadcasting sentencing remarks serves a legitimate public interest. He emphasised that filming sentencing remarks does not compromise justice in most cases.

Concerns from the Bar Council

Amanda Pinto QC warned that broadcasting could turn sentencing into an “armchair spectator sport”. She noted that because only the judge’s remarks are televised, the public may not fully understand why a particular sentence was imposed.

The Law Society’s view

Simon Davis, President of the Law Society, supported broadcasting when done sensitively and with appropriate restrictions. He stressed that decisions on which proceedings to broadcast must be made carefully to avoid jeopardising fairness or causing undue stress to defendants, witnesses and victims.

Campaigners for justice

Some campaigners argue the reforms do not go far enough. Emily Bolton, Director of Appeal, said the change will make only a fraction of court activity visible. She called for an end to the destruction of trial audio recordings after 7 years and for transcripts to be made accessible and affordable.

A victory for broadcasters

Major broadcasters campaigned for nearly 20 years to secure the right to film sentencing. Sky News, BBC News, ITN and PA Media welcomed the change, describing it as a significant step toward transparency.

John Ryley, Head of Sky News, said it was “a very significant moment for the opening up of our courts”.

Historically, the judiciary opposed cameras due to concerns about distress to victims, showboating by lawyers, accidental disclosure of confidential documents and the risk of turning courts into entertainment venues.

Cameras have been permitted in Scottish courts since 1992 and are used in various jurisdictions including Australia, South Africa, the Netherlands and Ukraine. In the United States, some trials are broadcast in full, often in considerable detail. Lord Burnett warned that such full broadcasts could be damaging in the United Kingdom.

The Secret Barrister’s perspective

The Secret Barrister noted that even if the initiative is partly symbolic, increasing public awareness of sentencing is beneficial. However, they expressed doubt that broadcasting only sentencing remarks will achieve this.

They explained that sentencing hearings are dynamic. Advocates debate case law, Sentencing Guidelines and aggravating or mitigating factors. Judges interrogate submissions. Mitigation may involve detailed reports and character references.

Sentencing remarks summarise the judge’s reasoning but cannot rehearse every argument or piece of evidence. As a result, lay viewers may struggle to fully understand the decision.

Live hearings: the future?

In July, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Terence Etherton, expressed interest in live‑streaming certain family cases in the Court of Appeal. He said the public should be able to see how judges work in important cases.