Second Delegated Legislation Committee
Tuesday 3rd November 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 8 hours, 25 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:32
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
More about what happens in our courts, and a growing expectation that we should take advantage of technology to expand access to courts, allowing for greater flexibility and transparency. In July 2022, there is a clear public interest in understanding two instruments before the committee today will build on that success by extending broadcasting further, supporting wider public access to our justice system in all circumstances. The final decision on whether filming is permitted will ultimately rest with a judge. This will ensure that there is always judicial assessment in each case of the extent to which broadcasting is appropriate.
These two orders take broadly the same legislative approach as earlier instruments made under section 32, one of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. Consistent with previous practice, each court has a separate recording and broadcasting order. The judiciary supports these policy changes. The extension of broadcasting to the Administrative Court was specifically recommended by the judicial led Transparency and Open Justice Board. The Lady Chief Justice, whose agreement is required under section 32 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, has indicated that she is content with the draft orders extending broadcasting to the administrative Court will increase public access to proceedings that frequently determine matters of significant public importance, including challenges to decisions of public authorities through judicial review.
And I might add, on a personal note, I thought it would take getting elected to Parliament in order for my mum to be able to watch me on telly. Had I known that they were going to enable broadcasting of the administrative Court judicial review, I could have stayed there. Well, there's always there's always hope for life after Parliament, isn't there? This order will allow for the recording and broadcasting of proceedings taking place in open court, including submissions to the judge and any exchanges arising from them, and the judge giving judgment or a summary of their judgment.
The first order also removes the existing restriction on broadcasting proceedings in the Court of Appeal involving litigants in person. That restriction was originally intended to protect unrepresented parties and to avoid broadcasting only one side of the case, which could offer a distorted view of proceedings. The current framework prevents the recording and broadcasting of all proceedings involving a litigant in person, except for the court giving judgment. Our experience since broadcasting was first introduced into the Court of Appeal in 2013, is that this blanket approach is disproportionate and no longer appropriate in practice. Litigants in person the Court of Appeal are very rare.
When they do appear, they are often legally trained. The change will therefore allow submissions and exchanges with the court in these cases to be filmed, including those involving litigants in person. Subject as always to judicial permission. The second order will allow broadcasting of sentencing remarks delivered by the Chief Magistrate in open court. Building on the existing approach in the Crown Court. This represents a careful and measured first step into magistrates court, focusing on some of the most high profile cases, allowing the public to see and hear the judge explain a sentencing decision, rather than simply learning the outcome, will help improve understanding of how and why sentences are imposed.
Filming will be strictly limited to the chief Magistrate passing sentence and will not include victims, witnesses, defendants or other court users , or indeed any other part of the proceedings. The Chief Magistrate will have the ability to refuse permission or impose further conditions alongside reporting restrictions, including where remarks contain particularly sensitive details to protect victims of crime. The legislation allows for filming to take place via live streaming, which is managed by the court itself, and broadcasting, which involves third party media organisations. However, to begin with, we intend filming in the Administrative court and Magistrates Court to be broadcast.
This will build on established court broadcasting arrangements, working with experienced broadcasters who have been filming proceedings in our courts for many years, as under existing Crown Court and Court of Appeal arrangements, broadcasters will meet the cost of filming rather than His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, where broadcasting is live. A short delay will allow transmission to be stopped if an unexpected incident occurs or sensitive information is disclosed and we think that's an important safeguard. This provides an additional safeguard, as I said, to protect the proper administration of justice. The extent of these instruments is England and Wales.
The territorial application of these instruments is also England and Wales. And finally, I would like to assure honourable members that these statutory instruments will increase public access to court proceedings, whilst at the same time preserving judicial discretion, protecting the interests of victims and other court users, and ensuring the effective administrative administration of justice and the dignity of the court are upheld.
These two orders take broadly the same legislative approach as earlier instruments made under section 32, one of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. Consistent with previous practice, each court has a separate recording and broadcasting order. The judiciary supports these policy changes. The extension of broadcasting to the Administrative Court was specifically recommended by the judicial led Transparency and Open Justice Board. The Lady Chief Justice, whose agreement is required under section 32 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, has indicated that she is content with the draft orders extending broadcasting to the administrative Court will increase public access to proceedings that frequently determine matters of significant public importance, including challenges to decisions of public authorities through judicial review.
And I might add, on a personal note, I thought it would take getting elected to Parliament in order for my mum to be able to watch me on telly. Had I known that they were going to enable broadcasting of the administrative Court judicial review, I could have stayed there. Well, there's always there's always hope for life after Parliament, isn't there? This order will allow for the recording and broadcasting of proceedings taking place in open court, including submissions to the judge and any exchanges arising from them, and the judge giving judgment or a summary of their judgment.
The first order also removes the existing restriction on broadcasting proceedings in the Court of Appeal involving litigants in person. That restriction was originally intended to protect unrepresented parties and to avoid broadcasting only one side of the case, which could offer a distorted view of proceedings. The current framework prevents the recording and broadcasting of all proceedings involving a litigant in person, except for the court giving judgment. Our experience since broadcasting was first introduced into the Court of Appeal in 2013, is that this blanket approach is disproportionate and no longer appropriate in practice. Litigants in person the Court of Appeal are very rare.
When they do appear, they are often legally trained. The change will therefore allow submissions and exchanges with the court in these cases to be filmed, including those involving litigants in person. Subject as always to judicial permission. The second order will allow broadcasting of sentencing remarks delivered by the Chief Magistrate in open court. Building on the existing approach in the Crown Court. This represents a careful and measured first step into magistrates court, focusing on some of the most high profile cases, allowing the public to see and hear the judge explain a sentencing decision, rather than simply learning the outcome, will help improve understanding of how and why sentences are imposed.
Filming will be strictly limited to the chief Magistrate passing sentence and will not include victims, witnesses, defendants or other court users , or indeed any other part of the proceedings. The Chief Magistrate will have the ability to refuse permission or impose further conditions alongside reporting restrictions, including where remarks contain particularly sensitive details to protect victims of crime. The legislation allows for filming to take place via live streaming, which is managed by the court itself, and broadcasting, which involves third party media organisations. However, to begin with, we intend filming in the Administrative court and Magistrates Court to be broadcast.
This will build on established court broadcasting arrangements, working with experienced broadcasters who have been filming proceedings in our courts for many years, as under existing Crown Court and Court of Appeal arrangements, broadcasters will meet the cost of filming rather than His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, where broadcasting is live. A short delay will allow transmission to be stopped if an unexpected incident occurs or sensitive information is disclosed and we think that's an important safeguard. This provides an additional safeguard, as I said, to protect the proper administration of justice. The extent of these instruments is England and Wales.
The territorial application of these instruments is also England and Wales. And finally, I would like to assure honourable members that these statutory instruments will increase public access to court proceedings, whilst at the same time preserving judicial discretion, protecting the interests of victims and other court users, and ensuring the effective administrative administration of justice and the dignity of the court are upheld.
14:33
14:33
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Shelbrooke. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. As the Minister has outlined, these two orders make changes to the existing rules on recording and broadcasting of court proceedings and we support them. The previous conservative government took a number of steps to improve transparency in the courts, and to help the public better understand how judicial decisions are made. That included allowing proceedings in the Court of Appeal to be broadcast and from 2022, allowing judges sentencing remarks in the Crown Court to be filmed and broadcast. The aim was straightforward people should be able to see and understand how our courts work better whilst ensuring that victims, witnesses and defendants continue to receive appropriate protection and these orders build on that approach.
It's important to note, as the minister outlined, this is not an unrestricted right to film proceedings. Recordings and broadcasting will remain subject to the written permission of the court and to any conditions the court considers appropriate in the interests of justice. The order also changes the existing arrangements in the Court of Appeal. At present, where a party is not legally represented, the ability to record and broadcast proceedings is more limited. The order removes that restriction, meaning that submissions by litigants in person may also be recorded and broadcast again when the court gives permission and considers it appropriate.
There's no obvious reason why the fact that somebody representing themselves should automatically prevent proceedings from being broadcast. So inevitably, there will be more sensitive matters for the judge to consider whether unrepresented individuals. The second order concerns magistrates courts allow sentencing remarks delivered by the Chief Magistrate in open court to be recorded and broadcast. Again, this is a relatively narrow measure. It does not introduce a general broadcasting of magistrates court proceedings. For example, the recording is limited to the Chief Magistrate delivering sentencing remarks in a way that will be familiar with from sentencing remarks in other courts already shown to us.
The defendant, witnesses and other participants will not be filmed in existing reporting. Restrictions will continue to apply, allowing the public to hear directly from the judge about why a particular sentence has been imposed can improve understanding of sentencing Understanding of sentencing decisions. That's particularly important in serious or high profile cases where a headline reporter.
It's important to note, as the minister outlined, this is not an unrestricted right to film proceedings. Recordings and broadcasting will remain subject to the written permission of the court and to any conditions the court considers appropriate in the interests of justice. The order also changes the existing arrangements in the Court of Appeal. At present, where a party is not legally represented, the ability to record and broadcast proceedings is more limited. The order removes that restriction, meaning that submissions by litigants in person may also be recorded and broadcast again when the court gives permission and considers it appropriate.
There's no obvious reason why the fact that somebody representing themselves should automatically prevent proceedings from being broadcast. So inevitably, there will be more sensitive matters for the judge to consider whether unrepresented individuals. The second order concerns magistrates courts allow sentencing remarks delivered by the Chief Magistrate in open court to be recorded and broadcast. Again, this is a relatively narrow measure. It does not introduce a general broadcasting of magistrates court proceedings. For example, the recording is limited to the Chief Magistrate delivering sentencing remarks in a way that will be familiar with from sentencing remarks in other courts already shown to us.
The defendant, witnesses and other participants will not be filmed in existing reporting. Restrictions will continue to apply, allowing the public to hear directly from the judge about why a particular sentence has been imposed can improve understanding of sentencing Understanding of sentencing decisions. That's particularly important in serious or high profile cases where a headline reporter.