We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience. If you continue to use our website we will take this to mean that you agree to our use of cookies. If you want to find out more, please view our cookie policy. Accept and Hide [x]
21 January 2013 by Adam Wagner
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?
This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor:
Jasper Gold
Assistant Editor:
Allyna Ng
Editors:
Rosalind English
Angus McCullough KC
David Hart KC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy
Jonathan Metzer
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.
 | ninianreida4f433250b on Discrimination and Freedom of… |
 | generouslysuper1fa37… on Privacy v Freedom of Expressio… |
 | Michael Ough on The UK can, and should, leave… |
 | glyzel guey on Should we sue doctors? Law Pod… |
 | thegreatinsolvencysc… on Coronial investigation of the… |
 | davidlamming on Weekly Round-Up: Immigration,… |
 | hrupdateadmin on Lies, damned lies and fakery |
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.
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
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.
Anyone wanting to watch this has to be beyond sad . . .
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.
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.
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!
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.
“Too expensive,” the judges said, speeding off in their Jaguars.
I voted “NO” because it will become just like byuing tickets for a circus exact that it will be FREE.
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.