A Bad Idea

Ontario is about to test putting TV cameras in courtrooms. The experiment will have cameras in the province's Court of Appeal. Where and when and where the proceedings will be televised remains to be worked out.

It's a bad idea.

Visit just about any courthouse in Canada. Pick a courtroom or even a few to enter. You'll have to sit in the back in the seats reserved for the public. You're almost guaranteed to get a good seat because there won't be many spectators, if any, present.

When was the last time you were sufficiently interested in the administration of justice that you spent a day sitting in a courtroom?

Some trials do get overflow public attendance but they're the really controversial cases involving either notable figures or particularly grisly crimes. These cases are the very smallest tip of the iceberg and are anything but reflective of our judicial system.

More often you'll find lawyers arguing procedural matters or going on at length on points of law and judicial interpretation. The stuff is interesting enough if you're a party to the action or a lawyer observing an interesting argument but dull as dirt if you're a lay bystander.

If you try to justify televising court proceedings by ratings, you're going to have to focus on the controversial cases. These are the extraordinary cases and, because they're so out of the norm, will give a layperson a warped impression of the justice system. If, however, you want to focus on the day-to-day stuff, nobody will watch.

Some proceedings of the Supreme Court of Canada are already broadcast on CPAC. How many hours have you spent watching those programmes? If you have tuned in, how long were you able to stick with it before you switched to something remotely interesting?

I do watch these broadcasts - occasionally - but only because I was a litigator in the past and at times there are legal issues that interest me or a particularly skilled counsel who is a delight to watch.

Of course, broadcasting appellate proceedings as proposed by Ontario has another huge drawback. Appeal courts often reserve their decisions which means you would have to sit through a lot of boring stuff and even then wouldn't find out who won. That would be like taking out the last 10-minutes of CSI. What is the point?

No, unless there is some demonstrated need and purpose to this experiment, the whole idea should be scrapped. Televising court cases is only for the lurid cases of the most prurient appeal. Think I'm wrong? Take a look at the American channel, Court TV. They know what people will watch and that sort of judicial freak show doesn't belong in Canada.