court reporting

April Raine

I have taken a media course and done some writing/been published. I have not reported on court but was in a court today observing a case and wondered-

If I wanted to report on a future case how does one get permission to take notes. Is it the court clerk or each individual judge? Do you have to have an NUJ card.? Is there a special area to sit?

Who is the official who says all rise when the judge comes in? Should I ask him?

Someone said recently, possibly on boards, that some judge does not like the taking of notes.?

I did take notes at a case some time ago but the paper did not print it as it was a very voilent case. Point is the judge did not stop me and at that time I thought one coud take notes? Alos it was not a full hearing just the first appearance after murder charge so maybe that is why the judge did not mind

jdivision

Most journos just sit at the back and take notes, go to courts.ie and look up legal diary to see forthcoming cases

April Raine

jdivision wrote: »

Most journos just sit at the back and take notes, go to courts.ie and look up legal diary to see forthcoming cases

Thanks. See post 6 at

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055301784

Can the judge prevent it?Also when you say journo do you have to be in the nuj or have press card

jdivision

Justice must be seen to be done in public unless it's a family law case. Judge has no right to stop you taking notes. Mobiles and dictaphones are out though. notes by hand.

April Raine

jdivision wrote: »

Justice must be seen to be done in public unless it's a family law case.

i know these are held in camera

Judge has no right to stop you taking notes. .

are you sure are you a solicitor

Mobiles and dictaphones are out though. notes by hand

OK knew that no recorders

Thanks for your help

flogen

jdivision wrote: »

Justice must be seen to be done in public unless it's a family law case. Judge has no right to stop you taking notes. Mobiles and dictaphones are out though. notes by hand.

There was a relatively recent case where the judge stopped people taking notes if they weren't accredited in some way - I have a feeling it was a case related to the Corrib Gas line or the Pitstop Ploughshares group... can't find references to it yet, though.

Not sure what the judge's logic or legal basis was for doing so but I'm certain it did happen.

In most cases, though, you can enter as a member of the public and won't be stopped from taking notes. Well, that's my understanding, anyway.

jdivision

flogen wrote: »

There was a relatively recent case where the judge stopped people taking notes if they weren't accredited in some way.

Perhaps that was in relation to legal debate that a jury couldn't be present for and therefore his fear was that it could be passed on or printed? Only circumstance where I can imagine it was warrented. This did happen in Catherine Nevin trial but every journalist there knew they couldn't write about that part. Happens a bit. Where a jury is present or it's a judge only jury as it were I've never heard of it happening. Perhaps i'm wrong with Corrib,.

sh_o

In some courts, the Judge likes to be aware that there are journalists and/or note takers in the court. Sometimes it is best to talk to his registrar or tip staff before the Judge arrives. Generally they do not mind.
In certain matters, the Court will inform people that they cannot take notes or report on certain aspects of the case. For example, matters discussed in a voir dire in a criminal case cannot be reported on.
Some commercial or civil matters can also not be reported on, like applications for certain types of injunctive relief which are done ex parte. One example would be if the Applicant was requesting an Anton Pillar order, then surprise is important and normally Counsel would also ask the judge to inform anyone present that the matter cannot be reported.

santosubito

I've only ever been hauled up for ID by a judge once. That was Mr Justice Carney in the Central Criminal Court. It was a rape case and was in camera. So I had to approach the bench, with another colleague, and show him our press passes or work ID cards. I'd only been in his court about 50 times beforehand, so he mustn't have gotten used to my face.:D
You are generally just ignored in court. In the district court, like the Bridewell, it's a bit of a free for all. You try and sit as close as possible to the judge because the acoustics are ****e. Once the gardai on duty get to know your face, they generally leave you alone - or sometimes ask out of interest what we're here for.
(As an aside, country courts are usually more relaxed. There will usually be a local paper reporter sitting under the judge, with solicitors and facing the rest of the court. The clerk usually gives him or her the charge sheets for each case - in a big print out - so the can take them down. But you would expect that because of their familiarity. But you can sit where you want, effectively. Just try and ge as close to the top as possible so you can hear the proceedings. Cloverhill is good, navan and Trim are good, some ones in the country are terrible for hearing what's going on.)
In the Bridewell, we usually stand to the left or right of the judge, along with the interpreters and there are usually no problems. Or we stand around the entrance to to the stairs leading to the cells. It's where all the gardai stand and you can lean on the panel to take your otes. Some gardai aren't like that, however, and are only too happy to usher you to the back of the court, where you can hear diddly squat.
Some judges like the media being there, some don't. Some actually play to the media, there's a great judge down the country who retiured recently who would make some comment - and then look over at you to make sure you got it down all right.
As has been said, family law cases are in camera, as are rape and sexuall assualt cases. In the latter, the judge declares it in camera and the court garda asks everyone to leave expect people centrally involved and "bonafide members of the media", which is why judge Carney asked me and my pal for ID once.
Another area where you have to be careful is a section 2 bail hearing. Here judges usually do one of two things- they either throw the media out or tell them not to reprt aything prejudicial. A section 2 hearing is when gardai object ot bail and talk about previous convictions. If we're allowed to stay, we don't report on the previous, we merely say gardai objected because they believe X to be a flight risk, or the seriousness of the offence, or whatever can be reported.
So, in effect, you are really only asked for ID in rape or sexual assault cases. Although it is an idea to talk to the clerk and say hello.
As another aside, I was sitting beside an Irish Times hack a few years ago in Trim, when he was pulled up by bthe court sergeant andthe judge (Brophy, if I recall correctly) tarted berating him and said there would be consequences. i asked him what the beef was and he told me he'd been recording the case on his dictaphone. It was reported on at the time. It was when Michael O'Leary was up for something. I couldn't believe it.

santosubito

April Raine wrote: »

i know these are held in camera

are you sure are you a solicitor

OK knew that no recorders

I always though joydivision was a reporter.

monument

jdivision wrote: »

Judge has no right to stop you taking notes.

Within their court rooms judges are all powerful.

For example, (unless I've been misinformed) there is no written law saying you can't record in court, it is just something the judges have put in place and enforced.

When I've been in court on news days etc... in Kilmainham District Court we went up to the Garda in charge and (as we were told would likely to happen) we were directed to sit behind the Garda on one side of the court. But many/most courts don't have defined areas where reporters should sit.

As it happens on the day the Judge hardly looked up from his desk at all over the time we were there and a lawyer making nose by changing the pages of the Irish Times was only stopped by a stern look from a more senior lawyer.

On the other hand I went along to the case of the Irish Time and the Mahon Tribunal in the High Court where I was taking notes just to test myself, and three of the most senior judges in the country regularly making eye contact with me. Ok, they might have been looking at the defendants on front of me at least half of the time, but at first it was more then unnerving. I nearly sure I'm ranting now.

santosubito

monument wrote: »

Within their court rooms judges are all powerful.

For example, (unless I've been misinformed) there is no written law saying you can't record in court, it is just something the judges have put in place and enforced.

Well, from memory it is in the district court rules.

santosubito

Irish Independent

March 29, 2003

RYANAIR Enhanced Coverage LinkingRYANAIR -Search using:
Company Profile
News, Most Recent 60 Days
BOSS FINED Euro 1,269 FOR DANGEROUS DRIVING

LENGTH: 501 words


RYANAIR
Enhanced Coverage LinkingRYANAIR -Search using:
Company Profile
News, Most Recent 60 Days
boss Michael O'Leary had his wings clipped for dangerous driving yesterday.

The multi-millionaire was fined Euro 1,269 and had his licence endorsed at Trim District Court in Co Meath.

Impeccably dressed in a navy suit, white shirt and tie, a grim-faced Mr O'Leary (42),faced three charges of dangerous driving, careless driving and dangerous overtaking.

The court heard the airline boss had driven in such a manner as to cause two separateindividuals to dial 999 to alert gardai as he drove his green Mercedes on August 16 laston the Dublin-Trim road.

Mr O'Leary had overtaken a stream of 10 to 15 cars on a straight stretch of road just past the village of Kiltale. Judge John Brophy said it was "quite clearly a simple and straightforward case of dangerous driving". The court had heard the State was preparedto take a plea in relation to careless driving. But Judge Brophy said he did not agree andcharged Mr O'Leary with one offence of dangerous driving.

Witness Catriona Cunningham said she was driving from Batterstown along the main Dublin-Trim road. As she approached Grange, a BMW overtook her, quickly followed by a 97D registered Mercedes, which also passed her in the face of oncoming traffic - forcingher to brake and allow Mr O'Leary's Mercedes to pull in, in front of her.

She also witnessed the Mercedes overtaking between 10 and 15 cars on a straight stretch of road. She dialled 999 and got through to Trim garda station.

Another witness, Stephen Carass, told Judge Brophy he was also driving in the same line of traffic and witnessed the Mercedes overtaking four cars and a truck.

Garda Peter Mulryan told the court that following the two separate 999 calls about the Mercedes driver, Garda Fergal Quinn was dispatched by patrol car to follow the vehicle.

Garda Quinn said he followed Mr O'Leary as far as Athboy Gate in Trim, where he pulled him over and informed him there had been two complaints against him. Mr O'Leary saidhe felt he had done nothing dangerous. The garda gave the airline boss an oral warningthat he might be prosecuted later.

Paddy McEntee, SC, for Mr O'Leary, told Judge Brophy it was his client's first offence and that he had "met the case totally honorably". Judge Brophy said as it was his first offence he was not going to disqualify Mr O'Leary. He fined him Euro 1,269 for dangerousdriving and endorsed his licence, giving him one month to pay and setting the appealamount for Euro 1,000.

Speaking outside court to reporters, Mr O'Leary said: "I'm very sorry, I will try and learnfrom the experience." He felt the court, judge, gardai and the two witnesses were "very fair".

He added: "I clearly made a mistake. I'm sorry to have wasted the Garda and court time."

* Following a short adjournment in the case, Judge Brophy said an Irish Times reporter, Tim O'Brien, had tape-recorded proceedings, which was "totally illegal". He warned theState could prosecute him over the matter, and confiscated the dictaphone.

<SP>Nicola Anderson and Isabel Hurley<SP>

santosubito

The Irish Times

March 29, 2003

Ryanair chief is fined E1,269 for dangerous driving

BYLINE: By TIM O'BRIEN

SECTION: CITY EDITION; HOME NEWS; Pg. 5

LENGTH: 383 words



Ryanair chief executive Mr Michael O'Leary was yesterday fined E1,269 and had his licence endorsed for dangerous driving in Co Meath last August.
Two other counts of driving without due care and crossing a continuous white line were taken into account by Judge John Brophy.

Counsel for Mr O'Leary, Mr Patrick MacEntee SC, told Judge Brophy that the alleged offences occurred shortly after 7 p.m. on August 16th, as Mr O'Leary was returning home from work.



The court heard from a witness, Ms Caitriona Cunningham, that as she was driving from Batterstown in heavy traffic towards Trim, Co Meath, she was overtaken by a BMW car.
While she felt there was space for the BMW to make the manoeuvre, she noticed that a Mercedes was also trying to overtake and she was forced to brake to allow it to get in front of her. Later, she saw the Mercedes pass a line of cars and cross a continuous white line to do so. It was, she felt, a dangerous move and she observed an oncoming car flashing its lights at the Mercedes. She used her hands-free mobile phone to dial 999 and reported the car and its registration to gardai at Trim.

Mr Stephen Karcas said he had also been driving in the same line of traffic when he saw the Mercedes overtake a number of cars and a lorry. He, too, called the gardai at Trim.

Garda Fergal Quinn told the court that he was on patrol in an unmarked Garda car when gardai from Trim advised him of a speeding Mercedes in the area.

He located Mr O'Leary, who acknowledged that he had been driving the route in question but who said he felt he had done nothing dangerous.

Judge Brophy would not accept that what occurred amounted to less than dangerous driving. "Two concerned citizens had taken it upon themselves to dial 999." It was "quite clearly a straightforward case of dangerous driving".

Judge John Brophy adjourned Mr O'Leary's trial for five minutes yesterday to allow the businessman to consult his legal advisers.

On his return to the bench, Judge Brophy said that in the interval it had been brought to his attention that The Irish Times reporter present had been using a tape recorder.

The judge said the use of such machines was illegal. He confiscated the machine and told this reporter that a prosecution may be brought against him.

markkeane

You don't need permission to take notes in court.
They are open to the public.
You sit on the press bench which is on one of the sides of the courtroom.
A judge may make an order banning the publication of a person't identity ie sexual assualt/rape cases, unless the victim waives their right to anonymity.
You cannot attend Family Law Court hearings.

In relation to submitting court reports to newspapers or other media, forget it.
You aren't a journalist, don't have the required experience and you may as well be a member of the public submitting the report.
Court reporting is a skill that is gained over many years from the District Court, to the Circuit Civil and Criminal courts, to the High Courts, Special Criminal Court and Supreme Courts.
A news Editor would not trust you.
Learn shorthand. Do a journalism course and then apply for a job on a regional newspaper.

April Raine

markkeane wrote: »

.In relation to submitting court reports to newspapers or other media, forget it.
You aren't a journalist, don't have the required experience and you may as well be a member of the public submitting the report.
.

you do not know what skills i have or how i can write.If i were to be put off by that remark i would not get far.At a trial i attended recently a radio report gave a very one sided report and missed a very important element.The reporter has shorthand

In any case I was only asking out of interest as since i do not have shorthand i was going to write a piece for non pulication or maybe blog publication and see how it compared with the press report.It was meant as interest practise in case i do journalism tho i do not believe any course is really important. you only need to be able to write and shorthand for court

April Raine

santosubito wrote: »

I've only ever been hauled up for ID by a judge once. That was Mr Justice Carney in the Central Criminal Court. It was a rape case and was in camera. So I had to approach the bench, with another colleague, and show him our press passes or work ID cards. I'd only been in his court about 50 times beforehand, so he mustn't have gotten used to my face.:D
You are generally just ignored in court. In the district court, like the Bridewell, it's a bit of a free for all. You try and sit as close as possible to the judge because the acoustics are ****e. Once the gardai on duty get to know your face, they generally leave you alone - or sometimes ask out of interest what we're here for.
(As an aside, country courts are usually more relaxed. There will usually be a local paper reporter sitting under the judge, with solicitors and facing the rest of the court. The clerk usually gives him or her the charge sheets for each case - in a big print out - so the can take them down. But you would expect that because of their familiarity. But you can sit where you want, effectively. Just try and ge as close to the top as possible so you can hear the proceedings. Cloverhill is good, navan and Trim are good, some ones in the country are terrible for hearing what's going on.)
In the Bridewell, we usually stand to the left or right of the judge, along with the interpreters and there are usually no problems. Or we stand around the entrance to to the stairs leading to the cells. It's where all the gardai stand and you can lean on the panel to take your otes. Some gardai aren't like that, however, and are only too happy to usher you to the back of the court, where you can hear diddly squat.
Some judges like the media being there, some don't. Some actually play to the media, there's a great judge down the country who retiured recently who would make some comment - and then look over at you to make sure you got it down all right.
As has been said, family law cases are in camera, as are rape and sexuall assualt cases. In the latter, the judge declares it in camera and the court garda asks everyone to leave expect people centrally involved and "bonafide members of the media", which is why judge Carney asked me and my pal for ID once.
Another area where you have to be careful is a section 2 bail hearing. Here judges usually do one of two things- they either throw the media out or tell them not to reprt aything prejudicial. A section 2 hearing is when gardai object ot bail and talk about previous convictions. If we're allowed to stay, we don't report on the previous, we merely say gardai objected because they believe X to be a flight risk, or the seriousness of the offence, or whatever can be reported.
So, in effect, you are really only asked for ID in rape or sexual assault cases. Although it is an idea to talk to the clerk and say hello.
As another aside, I was sitting beside an Irish Times hack a few years ago in Trim, when he was pulled up by bthe court sergeant andthe judge (Brophy, if I recall correctly) tarted berating him and said there would be consequences. i asked him what the beef was and he told me he'd been recording the case on his dictaphone. It was reported on at the time. It was when Michael O'Leary was up for something. I couldn't believe it.

How come he did not know he could not record?

lostexpectation

flogen wrote: »

There was a relatively recent case where the judge stopped people taking notes if they weren't accredited in some way - I have a feeling it was a case related to the Corrib Gas line or the Pitstop Ploughshares group... can't find references to it yet, though.

Not sure what the judge's logic or legal basis was for doing so but I'm certain it did happen.

In most cases, though, you can enter as a member of the public and won't be stopped from taking notes. Well, that's my understanding, anyway.

that was just the judge showing his/her political bias and open hostility to protesters.

April Raine

lostexpectation wrote: »

that was just the judge showing his/her political bias and open hostility to protesters.

What would one say to the judge in that situation that would not result in being in contempt or thrown out? At a case last week a judge threw out a [not reporter] girl for drinking a take away coffee in his court which was 'not a restaurant' while all the lawyers were sipping from mineral water bottles

monument

Here's a section from a Law Reform Commission report on Contempt of Court (from 1994)...

The Recording And Broadcasting Of Court Proceedings (a) Tape recorders

4.41
The Commission has no objection in principle to the recording or broadcasting of the proceedings of the courts. The Commission's concern is about the possible disruption of courts' proceedings by the use of any recording or broadcasting equipment. We pointed out in the Consultation Paper that no statute regulates in express terms the use of tape recorders (or other sound recorders) in court and that the matter appeared to fall within the inherent jurisdiction of the court to regulate its own procedure. We provisionally suggested that legislation should prescribe that the judge should determine the matter in the exercise of his or her discretion or the light of the circumstances of the case. This would mean that the judge would be entitled to give or refuse leave to use the recorder in court on such conditions as he or she considered proper.

4.42
While little debate was provoked by our provisional recommendation, we are not satisfied on re-consideration that it was soundly based. The Constitution requires that justice be administered in public and it is regarded as a natural consequence of this that media reporters, and any other persons who may wish to do so, may take notes of the proceedings and do not require permission from the judge or any one else so to do. Their use would, of course, be undesirable ... if they disrupted the court proceedings to any significant extent, but there is nothing to indicate that this is the case. It is true that recorders may be replayed to coach a person who is yet to give evidence. It is also the case that some witnesses might feel intimidated by the knowledge that their evidence is being recorded. These seem, however, to be weak arguments for requiring the use of sound recorders to be regulated by the court.

(b) Photographs, television and video recordings

4.43
We pointed out in the Consultation Paper that, as in the case of sound recordings, there are no statutory provisions dealing with the taking of photographs, television or video recordings. Again, the matter appears to be one governed by the inherent jurisdiction of the court on the same general principles as those relating to sound recordings. We said, however, that it was generally accepted that photographs may not be taken in court nor may the proceedings be televised or video recorded without permission. We should have added that in England there has been an absolute prohibition on photography in court since the enactment of section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925. That Act makes it an offence to take or attempt to take in court any photograph, or with a view to publication make or attempt to make in court any portrait or sketch, of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or witness or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal. It is also an offence to publish any photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in contravention of these provisions.

4.44
The taking of photographs in court may be disruptive to a much greater extent than the use of sound recorders. The same could hardly be said of making portraits or sketches. We think there is something to be said for a statutory provision similar to that in the English 1925 Act, but omitting the prohibition on the making of portraits or sketches.

4.45
Whether proceedings should in any circumstances be televised or video recorded is, of course, a far more complex question. It was not dealt with in the Consultation Paper because we considered at that stage that it raised complex and distinctive issues which were not of pressing urgency. It was, however, the subject of some discussion at the Seminar and most of those who spoke appeared to be in favour of allowing the televising of court proceedings. Since then the whole topic has been intensively debated on both sides of the Atlantic following the televising of much publicised cases in the United States in the last few years, most recently, the O.J. Simpson case.

4.46
Although the issue is certainly one which has considerable implications for the administration of justice in general and not simply for the law of contempt, we are satisfied on re-consideration that we should at least address the question of whether it would be desirable in principle that court proceedings should be televised. We have borne in mind in this context the experience that may have been gained by the televising of proceedings of the Oireachtas. We have also given careful consideration to the constitutional requirement that justice ... be administered in public. Justice is already administered in public and it cannot be said with any certainty that the Constitution requires the maximum degree of exposure or coverage of court proceedings. It is surely sufficient to ensure that justice is not administered behind closed doors. However, we recognise that there may be a significant public benefit to be gained from exposing the detailed workings of the administration of justice in the courts to everyone within reach of a television set, thereby lessening, as one would hope, the remoteness of court proceedings from the general public and the sense of alienation which many feel from that process.

4.47
We also appreciate the dangers which could result from the televising of court proceedings. Of these, perhaps the most important is the possible detriment to the interests of justice arising from the impact of televising the proceedings on the parties and witnesses. Some might be deterred from attending court because of fear or anxiety as to televising of the proceedings. Witnesses might feel severely inhibited in the actual giving of evidence by the presence of the cameras. Reaction to recent cases in the United States suggests that, unless the televising of some cases is either prohibited or curtailed, there could be serious prejudice to pending trials, significant invasions of privacy and the televising at inappropriate times of material which many would find offensive. There is also the danger that the television cameras would prove intrusive and disruptive of the proceedings.

4.48
Having considered these arguments carefully, we are, nevertheless, in favour in principle of the televising of court proceedings and, in particular, would suggest that at the least consideration should be given to a pilot scheme in the first instance. We have, in this context, had the advantage since the publication of the Consultation Paper of reading the Report of a working party of the Public Affairs Committee of the General Council of the Bar of England and Wales on Televising the Courts, published in May 1989. That Report, which was based on a considerable degree of research, was emphatically in favour in principle of the courts in that jurisdiction being televised. Their conclusions were based in part on the experience of members of the working party of seeing the way the system operated in other countries, particularly, of course, the United States and interviews with those concerned. The Report also addressed in some detail the technical problems and concluded that there were no insurmountable difficulties. They were, however, of the view that an advisory committee should be established to advise the Government generally in relation to the matter. We have no doubt that it would be desirable to adopt a similar approach in Ireland.32

4.49
The Commission considers that the arguments in favour are sufficiently strong to sustain a recommendation that an advisory committee be established to review the arrangements for, and legal provisions relating to, the recording and broadcasting of court proceedings by the media. Part of the responsibilities of the Committee should be to devise and monitor pilot projects involving research and the ... actual broadcasting of civil and criminal trials and of appellate proceedings. The Committee should also consider the desirability of permitting the broadcasting of proceedings of tribunals of inquiry.

[Page breaks and footers removed]

April Raine

monument wrote: »

Here's a section from a Law Reform Commission report on Contempt of Court (from 1994)...

Thanks for that. But they do sketch in England and show sketch on TV don't they?Perhaps I will quote that if the judge objects :D



]

santosubito

April Raine wrote: »

you do not know what skills i have or how i can write.If i were to be put off by that remark i would not get far.At a trial i attended recently a radio report gave a very one sided report and missed a very important element.The reporter has shorthand

In any case I was only asking out of interest as since i do not have shorthand i was going to write a piece for non pulication or maybe blog publication and see how it compared with the press report.It was meant as interest practise in case i do journalism tho i do not believe any course is really important. you only need to be able to write and shorthand for court

Well, fair play to you, but I'm afraid your last sentence is complete bollox. And I wonder what qualifies you to say that? You need a hell of a lot more than shorthand and writing ability. You need to know what is going on in the court. You need to know what you can write and what you can't. For example, can you inlcude legal argument in your story? Can you write any abuse that is shouted at an accused from the public gallery? Do you know that there is a problem with privilege in the District Court? That's why RTE and most newspapers won't report admissisons mmade by an accused when the charge was put to him or her in a Garda station - even when it is read out in the court? Do you know that, for example, defence senior counsel in high profile cases read every single word about their case in the papers looking for a mistake?
I tend to agree with Markkeane on this one. Court reporting is a speciality. Just ask the poor court reporter who was let go this week.

santosubito

April Raine wrote: »

How come he did not know he could not record?

Haven't a clue. But ignorance is no defence.

santosubito

monument wrote: »

Here's a section from a Law Reform Commission report on Contempt of Court (from 1994)...



[Page breaks and footers removed]

And I think broadcasting is a great idea.

monument

April Raine wrote: »

Perhaps I will quote that if the judge objects :D

If even if you look to be joking here, I would highly recommend you do not.

santosubito

monument wrote: »

If even if you look to be joking here, I would highly recommend you do not.

+1. Seriously. Judges and jokes don't go together. If you think you can joke your way out of a contempt issue, you'll soon see the error of your ways.
Oh, and don't forget to bow to the bench when you enter and leave the court.

April Raine

santosubito wrote: »

+1. Seriously. Judges and jokes don't go together. If you think you can joke your way out of a contempt issue, you'll soon see the error of your ways.
Oh, and don't forget to bow to the bench when you enter and leave the court.

I was only joking, are you serious re the bow saw no one do that

April Raine

santosubito wrote: »

Well, fair play to you, but I'm afraid your last sentence is complete bollox. And I wonder what qualifies you to say that? You need a hell of a lot more than shorthand and writing ability. You need to know what is going on in the court. You need to know what you can write and what you can't. For example, can you inlcude legal argument in your story? Can you write any abuse that is shouted at an accused from the public gallery? Do you know that there is a problem with privilege in the District Court? That's why RTE and most newspapers won't report admissisons mmade by an accused when the charge was put to him or her in a Garda station - even when it is read out in the court? Do you know that, for example, defence senior counsel in high profile cases read every single word about their case in the papers looking for a mistake?
I tend to agree with Markkeane on this one. Court reporting is a speciality. Just ask the poor court reporter who was let go this week.

What I meant was in general you need only be able to write and I would not be put off by criticism or if i made mistakes. But I do accept all you say here, that you only meant to help and appreciate your telling me and am open to any advice. I did not know about privelege but did notice about some things not reported re distric court. Any books I can read about this?


Who is the court reporter who was let go?

Do you know that, for example, defence senior counsel in high profile cases read every single word about their case in the papers looking for a mistake?

I knew that

Thanks for all the info guys

lostexpectation

April Raine wrote: »

What would one say to the judge in that situation that would not result in being in contempt or thrown out? At a case last week a judge threw out a [not reporter] girl for drinking a take away coffee in his court which was 'not a restaurant' while all the lawyers were sipping from mineral water bottles

well i think that was shannon case but the judge did the same in the corrib/harrington case, refusing to assign a court stenographer,refusing to give a free copy of the transcript to the defendent and refusing to allow the defendant to employ her own stenographer in in her court. its going to the high court.

judges or laws unto themselves.