Court Room Drawings

[EvianBaby]

I was wondering why drawings of defendants, judges, etc are used instead of photographs.

A bit of Googleing suggested a few things, including that it's so there's no risk of any jury being identified and because the expression on the defendants face in a photo may sway public opinion one way or another.

Does anyone know the definitive answer as to why they don't take photo's?

[ichkeria]

Cameras are banned. That's the simplest answer.
Why they are banned I'm not entirely sure.
The artwork often adds to the drama I find

[EvianBaby]

If it's because they are banned, I want to know why...

[Peter Pedant]

Judges dont allow cameras in court - and enforrce it through powers of contempt of court which used to be common law powers but are now statutory - Courts Act 1981 I think.

(they do in Amerikee, land of the free)

and they also dont allow doodling

so the arteest - very specialised area - has to memorise the scene
and then do it all outside.

You will find rare photies of court scenes secretly taken
There may be one of Crippen in the dock

and I think Amery with the black cap on in 1922.

Melford (old melly) Stevenson - not one of the judiciary's brightest sparks used to carry his black cap with him even after the abolition of the Death Penalty because he like musing on judges' power of life and death.

didnt really answer your q
but gave me a chance to muse

[Peter Pedant]

Judges' policy

one judge can't break ranks and let them in - although the Supreme Court is going to allow them (?)

using a camera/phone in court to photograph is contempt

[EvianBaby]

That also raises another question. Why do the artists have to do it from memory? Why can't they do it inside the court room?

[ichkeria]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/09/lift-ban-cameras-court

Cameras have been banned since 1925, when they were comparatively new-fangled things anyway.

[EvianBaby]

So is the reason they're banned really just because?

[tonymclark]

The artists are allowed to make written notes, I believe, but not allowed to sketch. So they will make notes that will jog their memory when they produce the artwork out of court.

[EvianBaby]

But why?

(I feel like a toddler, all Why? why? why?)

[ichkeria]

I found this:

At the time of the Criminal Justice Act 1925, photographs of judges, defendants and other participants in court proceedings were a popular subject for newspapers, in particular the tabloid press – just as they are in 2012. Although judges had the power to prevent photographs being taken in court where this disrupted proceedings, the increasing availability of portable cameras meant that the growing number of “news photographers” easily got round this problem. During the debates in Parliament on the 1925 Act, specific reference was made to “a photograph… taken at the Old Bailey of a Judge passing sentence of death… a most shocking thing to have taken, or to have published, dreadful for the judge, dreadful for everybody concerned in the case.”8
Despite some protests that the measures in the 1925 Act were part of a wider trend of trying to censor the press, the legislation was passed with the argument that “Everybody has suffered for a long time by prisoners in the dock and witnesses being pilloried by having their photographs taken, and this is to prevent that happening.”

[EvianBaby]

That's interesting. So it seems it's down to either censorship or protection. I guess it depends what way you want to look at it.

Thanks for making the effort to look it up Ichkeria!

[ichkeria]

You're welcome. It got me wondering too.

[pastafreak]

ichkeria

Cameras have been banned since 1925, when they were comparatively new-fangled things anyway.

They weren't that new fangled-the oldest photo dates from the 1820's...and photography was in common usage by the 1850's-both for portraiture and media.
My first thought was the potential ease of reproduction of photographs vs privacy issues.Both for judges-and the accused.

[bibblebub]

the first step to changing the current situation might be on its way http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/americanstyle-televised-courts-move-a-step-closer-channel-4-to-show-a-british-murder-trial-for-first-time-8541108.html (but it is only a trial in a Scottish court)

[New Judge]

Today the banning of photography is probably more necessary than ever. With tiny cameras, social media sites and the internet in general it would be very easy to take and post pictures of those participating in court cases. Many people taking part in court proceedings are not professionals. They include jurors, witnesses, magistrates and support volunteers. Such people do not usually want photographs of themselves plastered all over the internet with the all the possible repercussions from various misfits.

The country’s courts are not places of public entertainment, they are places where the law is administered. Anybody wanting to see the proceedings can do so from the public gallery.

[FredPuli43]

As a student, I was told by an usher at the Old Bailey that I was not allowed to make any note of, or transcript of, evidence when in the public gallery. That is stranger than the 'no photograph' rule.

Such photographs were generally forbidden before 1925, but it was a matter for the judge or magistrate to regard it as contempt of court rather than as an offence in itself. There is a famous photograph, taken by hidden camera, of 'Dr' Crippen and Ethel le Neve in the dock at Bow Street. That was in 1910.

As an aside, barristers are not to permit photographers to take photos of them in robes or, worse, wig and gown, outside courts. Not that wig and gown is likely; just possible if one is going in to the High Court via the back door in Carey Street, directly from chambers in Lincoln's Inn.

[Peter Pedant]

did anyone notice that this act also seems to have been important in....
Vocky Price's conviction ?

The Act is here

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/86

and it looks as tho the only two sections still in force and unrepealed are:

s 41 photography in court

s 47 coercion by the husband.

heigh ho what a coincidence

[FredPuli43]

An interesting read, Peter. Section 41 of the Act, though amended, still appears to prohibit the making of any sketch with a view to publication, not just all photographs. The amendment is to exclude the Supreme Court from the definition of 'court', so the paparazzi can take embarrassing photographs of there. Watch out for shots of judicial wardrobe malfunctions in the " sidebar of shame" in every ABer's favourite online newspaper

Marital coercion, still, happily, not available as a defence to treason and murder, is an anachronism. Duress is a perfectly adequate defence for either sex, married or not; only a wife can claim marital coercion. The judge in the recent trial did his best to say so, while just bringing himself to deliver a direction which narrrowly fell within authority