The Pinochet extradition case was another example with far-reaching public interest and implications which I remember viewing with increasing anticipation as the decisions were read and explained.

Libel cases such as Mucca vs Macca simply provide some light relief in the intervening period.

We could technically provide coverage with commentary and analysis to the same level as we do for sporting events. After all, watching the action is the best way to learn the rules – and who can fully comprehend contentious offside decisions without multiple replays from different angles and at different speeds.

If radio phone-ins can be awash with outrage at refereeing mistakes, why do we do we let the mistakes and travesties of justice which impact real lives just stand or lie as they are put to us?

If TV is the best way of improving scrutiny then bring it on.

I see no reason why most cases would have an identifiable public interest in their broadcast, but those such as current terrorist trials have clear public safety, social cohesion and political implications which we should be aware of and be free to discuss.

Can we trust government authority to make a fair case or are they exaggerating threats for political gain and as a means to justify their legislative programme?

This is a vital question and one which remains hanging in the balance as far as I’m concerned.

If we believe the most secure way of deciding is to have evidentially-based cases then let’s scrutinise the evidence.

“What is the Basque word for bullshit?”

With regard to that particular item, I would expect you to be polyglot, Lawrence.

Er… Where is the drama in five hours of argument about equitable estoppel or Quistclose trusts?

“David Kelly committed suicide.”

Ah right. That’s why there was no blood; and why Dr Kelly’s DNA wasn’t found on the knife; and why the police helicopter didn’t find any body. Oh, sorry. Lord Hutton said it was suicide, so that’s OK.

That’s right Senesco. Indeed this is something I have in common with most people. But now we are all going to be watching a few minutes of court drama and arriving at our own superficial judgements.

David Kelly committed suicide. I doubt that this was directly caused by his select committee appearances, but they were nevertheless an ordeal which in my view should have been recorded only in writing.

The highest court in the land, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, sits in a Committee Room in the Palace of Westminster. Five Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (wearing suits) listen to arguments presented by QCs in wigs and knee-breeches. Much of what is said will send the average punter to sleep. But it is of vital importance to all of us. And those who are interested and have specialist knowledge should be able to watch it at home. When the Law Lords read out their opinions from the red benches, they are filmed.

Much the same applies to Judicial Review hearings, and most of the cases that come to the Court of Appeal. There are no juries and usually no witnesses.

As I say above, I think it would be wrong to film lay witnesses and juries. But I see no problem broadcasting opening and summing up speeches and sentencing.

Would Michael Argyle have got away with his incompetent, bilious summings up had he had a camera trained on him? Might Roy Meadow have been just a little bit more self-critical if he had known that Joe public was listening in? And how many judges would dare go to sleep?

In the early 1980s, a TV programme entitled “Circuit 11 Miami” proved to me that the US criminal justice system is complete rubbish. Only television could do that.

Yes. I do remember Dr David Kelly. His killers have still to be brought to justice, I think?

is what they said about politics.

The plebs, whadda we know? and so long as we’ve got beer in our glass and footie on the telly, whadda we care?

No, of course it’s best we never find out how to make out minds up for ourselves, because we might just hurt ourselves in breaking free of the chains which bind us!

It is right that the public be allowed to observe in court. I don’t think that right should be extended to the television.

Increasing commercialisation in a proliferating media environment has squeezed out many generalist subjects which provide benefits to the public in favour of specialist forms which are either inaccessible or unreliable.

I’m guessing here, but you probably don’t trade in Brent Crude all that much, but all the same you’re probably closely aware of the price it trades at because the link between the fact of that figure and the multifarious ways in which it impacts on your life is widely accepted. Possession of this knowledge is helpful to you in providing you the ability to tailor you behaviour more closely to your means.

Market reporting and court reporting are essentially no different, except the link between crime and court reporting has been lost.

If we want to cut crime, then we must report the process properly.

The best tool we have is knowledge.

Which makes one or two suppositions about those who end up in court. Do you have any more enlightened ideas, such as forgetting about the trial altogether or maybe you prefer the Queen of Hearts’ approach?

This country is suffering a crisis in court reporting – I mean how many cases recieve more than cursory coverage in your Evening News?

And if they do it will be to exploit the lurid, gruesome or downright bizarre details which dramatise and sensationalise the human interest to gain headlines and sales at the expense of informative examples of how everyday life can and does go wrong.

Or would you prefer more media output of the likes produced by Jeremy Kyle to form the basis of common understanding?

Huh? If it was being debated on the floor of the House, as part of a legislative proposal, would it still be trivial?

If not, it might help our parliamentarians if we had some policy on the issue. Which is what Conference is for.

. . . which he will presumably do for sound legal reasons. And then the cameras will undermine this.

My understanding is that the public record is what the judge allows to be placed there, not what’s actually said or done in court.

If the judge doesn’t like a comment or piece of evidence or even a particular phrasing, I understand that he can have it removed from the record and direct the jury to ignore it.

That way it’s not in the public record but anyone who thinks the jury will ignore it (even if they conscientiously try) is naive. Therefore someone could well be convicted on something said or done that’s not in the public record; and that’s wrong.

Of course, I could be wrong about just how such incidents are handled in the record.