Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Contempt of court isn't like being caught on the motorway doing 71. If a judge catches somebody recording proceedings (especially somebody who should know better,) the judge is likely to be more than a little annoyed and that person WILL get the book thrown at them and will get a prison sentence.

I'm going to leave it after this as its not really related to somebody's horrible work stress.


You can't take notes in the public gallery. If you do the judge won't go mad but an usher will often stop you and exclude you from court. Some courts police this more thoroughly than others. At the Bailey they are assiduous. At Southwark Crown Court, where the press tend to use the public gallery, the officials assume that anybody with a notebook is a reporter and don't stop anybody.


Journalists can take notes (they are working from within the well of the court, on the press bench,) and participants can takes notes. But there is no way people can "record" proceedings from the public gallery, either on a tape recorder on in a notebook. You say people can record "not very accurately." This is certainly not the case. As I said above, court reporters should have good shorthand. They are under an obligation to the court to ensure their story IS both fair and accurate. Being accurate is the reporter's problem, not the court's. So if a court reporter "records" proceedings "not very accurately" they could end up in trouble if their mistake is relevant or unfair. Defence lawyers are particularly good at highlighting what they call inaccurate reporting to get cases thrown out because of prejudicial reporting.


And, many people don't know this, but the court artist isn't even allowed to draw in court. She can't even make preliminary sketches. She has to do her pictures from memory.


When you sitting in the public gallery, you are there to SEE justice being done, not to RECORD justice being done. Going beyond this is likely to get you kicked out, although using a recording device or a camera will get you time if you are caught. Even the recent rule allowing tweeting from court (at the Judge's discretion, following an application from the media) is restricted to reporters.



Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's a peculiar law - what's the justification?

>

> With a public gallery and the right to take notes,

> it seems that you are allowed to 'record' what

> takes place, just not very acccurately.

>

> Most strange.

I see your point, and I'm not trying to confuse issues - but I think it's all relevant.


I don't doubt the accuracy of your statements - I'm just saying that it seems silly.


Communication is as much about tone as it is about word selection, this is what I meant by journalists recording 'not very acccurately' when taking notes.


Similarly a memory is a 'record' of justice taking place, and this is what I meant in referring to the public gallery.


I assume that in normal circumstances the majority of the population would be allowed in the public gallery in the majority of cases? This means that the only restriction on the amount of people in the public gallery is the physical restrictions of space?


Hence this all seems totally inconsistent - by having a public gallery everyone is 'allowed' to know the proceedings of a case (including tone) - so the prevention of recording devices seems totally arbitrary.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I thought that re ULEZ, but actually other places do have similar schemes, eg Bristol. I got caught by this a couple of years ago when Google maps sent me through Bristol en route to somewhere else. Though I did manage to get the fine waived. And other places are apparently going to have them, eg Oxford. As I found when I was considering selling the car in Oxford. Which I think is a very good thing, but not helpful if your car isn't compliant  Also in order to sell it I would presumably have to get it into working order, so I'd have to buy a new battery anyway. I use mostly buses and trains already, for travelling both within and outside London.  That's why I rarely use the car except for transporting bulky/heavy items, or going to places which aren't easy to reach via public transport, or giving people a lift who are not very mobile. The problem with hiring a car to go to a festival, for example,  is that I'd be paying for it to sit in a field for several days. And it would be impossible, or at least very difficult,  to transport a tent and camping equipment there by public transport. Not that I've been to any festivals lately. I think I'm talking myself into keeping the car. I did do sums when ULEZ came in. I've had a Freedom Pass for over fifteen years, gulp 😂 This is all true, but you have to factor in my age, convenience, and the waste of money in hiring a car if you aren't actually going to use it once you've got to your destination until you need to drive home. If there was a system like zip cars where you could drive somewhere and leave the car for someone else to use, then pick up another car just to drive back, that would be different. And hire charges are greater for older drivers (even though apparently the stats say we are safer) even assuming you can find a company which will hire you a car. Thank you, that's useful. I  keep meaning to  check for ULEZ compliance. A mechanic once told me I should do this, because his son had a similar issue and then found his car was actually compliant, and I never got round to it. It's a Micra so I probably need to contact Nissan (or could a garage check NOx output? Is this part of the MOT?)
    • We used to have local councillors posting on this forum - are there any who are still members?
    • I've never owned a car in the 25 years I've lived in London.  I would regard it as  a hopeless waste of money  I walk, get public transport and taxis for the rare occasions when public transport won't cut it. Anything large that needs to be transporting to or away from my property - well pretty much all shops deliver and for anything  else  there is always someone who willing do it for a small fee. If I need a car to go somewhere outside of London (you would be surprised at how little this issue occurs) then hire cars exist.
    • Hi, we're in a similar position with our old people carrier and did a look back at our usage and then looked at the costs for car clubs, taxis and car hire costs if we got rid of it. In our case the away trips to family, especially during school holidays, makes it cheaper to keep ours and pay ULEZ (the away trips is the big cost for hiring). We rarely use it for local trips and plan usage to aim for multiple purpose trips. We also share with our neighbours such as moving large items with our people carrier and share the ulez cost. Generally for low use alone it will not make financial sense to buy a newer car. Also, if you have a petrol car check its NOx output amount for ULEZ compliance as TFL wrongly categorised many older cars. Did this for neighbours 2001 car and it's ULEZ compliant when TFL originally said it was not (now fixed) and having the same issue with a 1997 petrol car.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...