By Daily Mail Reporter
Showing key court cases on television could help to increase confidence in the legal system the top civil judge in England and Wales has claimed.
Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger said the move would need to be looked at very carefully but could increase confidence in the system, transparency and engagement.
The Supreme Court already televises its judgments, he said, but from a public interest perspective might there not be an argument now for its hearings, and some hearings of the Court of Appeal, being televised on some equivalent of the Parliament Channel, or via the BBC.
If we wish to increase public confidence in the justice system, transparency and engagement, there is undoubtedly something to be said for televising some hearings, provided that there were proper safeguards to ensure that this increased access did not undermine the proper administration of justice.
Such an idea would have to be looked at very carefully, and it would not be sensible for me to try and make any firm suggestions.
But, if broadcasting of court proceedings does go ahead, I think it would be right to make two points, even at this tentative stage.
First, the judge or judges hearing the case concerned would have to have full rights of veto over what could be broadcast; secondly, I would be very chary indeed about the notion of witness actions or criminal trials being broadcast in each case for obvious reasons.
Lord Neuberger also backed the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judges provisional decision to allow the use of Twitter in courts.
It seems to me that, subject again to proper safeguard, the advent of court tweeting should be accepted, provided of course that the tweeting does not interfere with the hearing, he said.
Why force a journalist or a member of the public to rush out of court in order to telephone or text the contents of his notes written in court, when he can tweet as unobtrusively as he can write?
It seems to me, in principle, that tweeting is an excellent way to inform and engage interested members of the public, as well as the legal profession.
But he joked: Whatever the outcome of the consultation, I doubt however that we will see the development of tweeting from the bench.
7. : , - , , . - . , - . .
UNIT 6. BRIEFING A CASE
-.
| a plaintiff | |||
| a defendant | |||
| a civil suit | |||
| government | |||
| to prosecute | |||
| to sue | |||
| a criminal case | |||
| to file an appeal | |||
| an appellant | |||
| an appellee | (.) | ||
|
|
|
, - 1.
1) ____________ sues _______________ in civil suits in trial courts.
2) The government ___________ defendants in a _________________
in trial courts.
3) The losing party may ask a higher (appellate) court to review the case. If the law gives the loser the right to a higher court review, his or her lawyers will ________________.
4) A person who files a formal appeal demanding appellate review as a matter of right is known as the _______________. His or her opponent is the __________________.
5) In a ___________, the victim brings a case against the offender or a third party for causing physical or emotional injuries.
6) The judicial process in a _____________ differs from a civil case in several important ways.
