Poll: Should the UK Supreme Court put recordings of entire hearings on YouTube?

21 January 2013 by

The UK Supreme Court says that at present putting recordings of full hearings online would be too expensive – see this post for all of the details and my thoughts on the issue.

What do you think?

9 comments


  1. ObiterJ says:

    All for the idea of being able to access hearings and judgments but I doubt that youtube is the best place for them. Youtube seems OK for the judgment summaries (a great move) but not for lengthy items.

  2. Andrew says:

    Anyone wanting to watch this has to be beyond sad . . .

  3. Jim Hutchon says:

    The cost is not cameras, or recording, that happens anyway. I don’t think edited highlights would help law students or other professionals, so uploading 10 hours or so at a spell would be unacceptable to You Tube. But Leveson provided full daily hearings on-line and recordings which can be accessed at any time thereafter, so the technology is available. That must be the same for the Supreme Court if it really wants to follow the same path.

  4. Peter Turtill says:

    I am not a lawyer but I need access to the law as it governs my life. I would very much like to see a list of books about Human Rights Law straight forward enough enough for me i.e. thick layman starting to show signs of senility.

  5. Alex says:

    The only costs I can see is the cost of a camera (or two), and then any time spent uploading, which is utterly minimal…

    But either way, they should at least be filmed and made available, whether to youtube or otherwise. Anyone can walk in and watch a case anyhow!

  6. iSMAIL ABDULHAI BHAMJEE says:

    I VOTED YES, AS THE LORD CHANCELLOR WITH THE TREASURY ARE RESPONSIBLE MINISTERS FOR FUNDING OF THE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS SYSTEM IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.

  7. “Too expensive,” the judges said, speeding off in their Jaguars.

  8. Anne Palmer says:

    I voted “NO” because it will become just like byuing tickets for a circus exact that it will be FREE.

    1. If you are against watching the court, just don’t watch it. No need to vote “no”.
      Based on that logic, I would need to vote “no” on seafood. But I am fine with just not eating it myself.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: