Court Reporters and Transcripts

dalta5billion

Listening to the radio there I heard a journalist give a suspiciously detailed account of the questioning of a witness from a current case today.

Are journo's sneaking a dictaphone into the courtroom or do they get a transcript from some other source? I've seen journalists tapping away on laptops, but usually just drafting an article as they go.

Would I also be correct in saying that the courts don't have official stenographers?

billy few mates

I was listening to the same account and the same thought crossed my mind....

GerJaxon

billy few mates wrote: »

I was listening to the same account and the same thought crossed my mind....

shouldn't a good shorthander be able to do it?

MarkAnthony

GerJaxon wrote: »

shouldn't a good shorthander be able to do it?

Perhaps we're giving away our ages here :P

conorh91

dalta5billion wrote: »

Listening to the radio there I heard a journalist give a suspiciously detailed account of the questioning of a witness from a current case today.

I'm sometimes suspicious about this too.

It's possible they have very good shorthand. It's possible they are recording the stuff.

Would I also be correct in saying that the courts don't have official stenographers?

Stenographers / loggers (people who put some sense on the now-common digital audio recording, i.e the official record) are still used in court. But these records are not made available to the media, and sometimes not even to parties.

MarkAnthony

It's about time the recording ban was lifted anyway. Justice needs to be seen (or at least heard) to be done and not only by those who can rock down to the court on a Tuesday afternoon.

conorh91

MarkAnthony wrote: »

It's about time the recording ban was lifted anyway. Justice needs to be seen (or at least heard) to be done and not only by those who can rock down to the court on a Tuesday afternoon.

I initially thanked your post but then I had to ninja-retract(!) because I had a sudden image of Newstalk or The Journal broadcasting a really unpopular legal defence arguments in some high-profile paedophilia case, for example.

The scope for perpetual outrage and vitriolic attack on counsel or the courts would be only massive.

So I see the value in what your saying, but I don't know if I'm fully agreed.

MarkAnthony

I absolutely take your point. That said:

-In Camera would apply in that case but I think other scenarios would be a definite possibility.

-At least if the clip was broadcast with the context available (Youtube account for the DC perhaps :pac:) people might actually take the time watch the thing rather than half reading a headline and tripping the light fantastic!

I was absolutely amazed when I was able to listen to Roe v Wade!

MarkAnthony

Incidentally one would also have to be very careful in criminal cases in general, while I'd be willing to see audio recording allowed for note taking purposes and perhaps for broadcast in full*, I think full video recording would place too much of a stigma on the accused/convicted.

*Perhaps with actors voices but I think I might just be over thinking this now.

Ireland is less anonymous than the US. Look at people picketing Joan Burton's house for example.

FWIW I think we do need to take steps to make people feel more confidence in the Courts. Paul Murphy has just started an absolutely ridiculous and dangerous campaign against the judiciary by promoting the idea that sending the water protesters to prison was "political judging".

Maybe if people could actually hear what the judge said and what the case was about rather than the bull**** version people like Murphy put out there, they'd be able to see what a great job the judiciary do.

conorh91

MarkAnthony wrote: »

-At least if the clip was broadcast with the context available (Youtube account for the DC perhaps :pac:) people might actually take the time watch the thing rather than half reading a headline and tripping the light fantastic!

That's true, and that's the other side of it.

Given that the existence of juries make written judgments by the Central Criminal Court so rare, it is true that the public, legal counsel and the courts are very vulnerable to distorted and sensational journalism.

On the other hand, I have seen the media give equally distorted and sensational coverage to Dáil Éireann proceedings, whose transcripts and recordings are nevertheless publicly available, but in the words of a former TD, are only witnessed by drunks and insomniacs (but I don't admit to belonging to either category).

So it's a complex argument, but one which could be solved by responsible journalism.

As a compromise, I would definitely like to see a relaxation of the rules in constitutional cases. You referred to the US experience and they have certainly demonstrated that our concerns about broadcasts on this side of the Atlantic may indeed be misplaced. As Kayroo says we are a small island, so perhaps this is best restricted in Ireland to constitutional and administrative, public-interest cases.

dalta5billion

I would ban the editing and/or redistribution of court recordings.

I very much enjoyed watching trials from the US without commentary or editing. The way their media edits court proceedings is proof enough that we should not allow such editing.

lawfilly

Not suspicious at all. Many of the courts I frequent have journalists tapping away on their laptops recording the courts activities. A very important facet of open justice in this Country!

Transcripts of trials are available to legal practitioners but are costly so you would only order them for lengthy trials.

dalta5billion

lawfilly wrote: »

Not suspicious at all. Many of the courts I frequent have journalists tapping away on their laptops recording the courts activities. A very important facet of open justice in this Country!

Transcripts of trials are available to legal practitioners but are costly so you would only order them for lengthy trials.

Hardly as accurate as the one on the radio, in which every stammer is accounted for (unless it's being purposely embellished).

BTW everyone please don't name the reporter if you think you know who they are.

Grolschevik

The New South Wales supreme court (I think it was) has podcasts of judgments on its website, and uses social media and blogs to more accessibly disseminate the reasoning behind decisions.

Can't remember the details, but there was an article in the Gazette about it in the last couple of years.

lawfilly

dalta5billion wrote: »

Hardly as accurate as the one on the radio, in which every stammer is accounted for (unless it's being purposely embellished).

BTW everyone please don't name the reporter if you think you know who they are.

Does it really matter though? What happens in court (with a couple of exceptions) is public record!

Its not some secret society!!

MarkAnthony

lawfilly wrote: »

Does it really matter though? What happens in court (with a couple of exceptions) is public record!

Its not some secret society!!

But it's, arguably, not as open as many make out either. There's some merit to that position as discussed above but perhaps more general openess about that aspect is required.

dalta5billion

lawfilly wrote: »

Does it really matter though? What happens in court (with a couple of exceptions) is public record!

Its not some secret society!!

One of the witnesses was to remain anonymous for security reasons... Suppose a recording of their voice got out? (Arguments about disguising voices aside)

I wouldn't object in principle, but it is breaking the rules of the court.

lawfilly

You can't record any proceedings of court and then broadcast them. Proceedings are recorded but access to those recordings are strictly limited.

A judge may institute a reporting restriction on certain matters and breaching that would be contempt of court.

dalta5billion

lawfilly wrote: »

You can't record any proceedings of court and then broadcast them. Proceedings are recorded but access to those recordings are strictly limited.

A judge may institute a reporting restriction on certain matters and breaching that would be contempt of court.

Journalists would have no trouble being in contempt of court if it's "in the public interest", the standard for which has dropped dramatically in the last few years, thanks to social media.

MarkAnthony

dalta5billion wrote: »

Journalists would have no trouble being in contempt of court if it's "in the public interest", the standard for which has dropped dramatically in the last few years, thanks to social media.

I don't agree with that to be honest. It's what separates a journalist from a oik with a paper and pencil.

lawfilly

dalta5billion wrote: »

Journalists would have no trouble being in contempt of court if it's "in the public interest", the standard for which has dropped dramatically in the last few years, thanks to social media.

Im not sure what youre getting at. Contempt of court is a rather serious offence of which as seen in the CCJ today, you will and can go into custody for! That's generally not the objective of most journalists!

Perhaps though you are just wishing to vent against the journalistic standards of the 4th and 5th estate!

dalta5billion

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I don't agree with that to be honest. It's what separates a journalist from a oik with a paper and pencil.

Perhaps I should have placed "journalist" in inverted commas.

Let us not get off-topic too much however.

MarkAnthony

dalta5billion wrote: »

Perhaps I should have placed "journalist" in inverted commas.

Let us not get off-topic too much however.

Well I don't think it is TBH. While a journalist might risk prison for a cause I think most "journalists" wouldn't risk anything.

There are some instances of nutters, like the recent incident in Cork but they seem few and far between.

dalta5billion

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Well I don't think it is TBH. While a journalist might risk prison for a cause I think most "journalists" wouldn't risk anything.

There are some instances of nutters, like the recent incident in Cork but they seem few and far between.

Some "journalists" are little more than mob-leaders on Twitter.

I can just imagine a "Beyonce wants this image removed from the internet" moment when a judge decides to restrict publication of a particular incident in court.

IIRC a witness in the KimDotcom vs NZ case gave evidence openly in court but his face had to be pixelated in court footage.

Now - imagine if the vigilante/social justice warriors/"journalists" took it upon themselves to publish a protected witness's image in "the public interest". I can fully see it happening.

MarkAnthony

dalta5billion wrote: »

Some "journalists" are little more than mob-leaders on Twitter.

I can just imagine a "Beyonce wants this image removed from the internet" moment when a judge decides to restrict publication of a particular incident in court.

IIRC a witness in the KimDotcom vs NZ case gave evidence openly in court but his face had to be pixelated in court footage.

Now - imagine if the vigilante/social justice warriors/"journalists" took it upon themselves to publish a protected witness's image in "the public interest". I can fully see it happening.

But it hasn't or at least happens very rarely.

The_Minister

I am fairly sure that I saw a journo with a recorder in the President's court - they were pretending to type, but far to slowly to keep up - they had a little metal tube half-covered by a book, but pointed towards the bench. They adjusted it discretely a few times throughout the hearing.

Uno my Uno.

Its possible that some journalists are covertly recording court proceedings but I think it is unlikely. The consequences of being caught are too high and whilst it might seem easy to the casual observer the Clerks and Tip Staff are usually very aware of what is going on in the Court Room.

What's more is that It is a journalist's job to record things that are going on and then report them back, including the significant details such as stammering and hesitant answers. It must be difficult but not impossible, if we are thinking of the same journalist who has been reporting on the Radio they are doing a fantastic job.

nxbyveromdwjpg

dalta5billion wrote: »

BTW everyone please don't name the reporter if you think you know who they are.

Why not? Why would you hide someone that would do that?

There is definitely some sort of irony in there.

nxbyveromdwjpg

If they have laptops, which we know they do, all they need do is hit record. Webcams with audio on laptops are standard now.

This would not surprise me in the slightest.

dalta5billion

nm wrote: »

Why not? Why would you hide someone that would do that?

There is definitely some sort of irony in there.

Potential for defamation?

What was also interesting was the journalist's use of intonation - lawyer was portrayed as innocent and inquisitive, and witness as low-toned and "guilty-sounding" to put it mildly. Their every stutter was reproduced, as if to discredit them (possibly correctly so). But if this was not the tone the witness actually used in court it would be inclined to prejudice the public against them greatly. This is a separate matter though to the possibility of someone making covert recordings of a court session.

nm wrote: »

If they have laptops, which we know they do, all they need do is hit record. Webcams with audio on laptops are standard now.

This would not surprise me in the slightest.

This is what I suspect too.

conorh91

dalta5billion wrote: »

What was also interesting was the journalist's use of intonation - lawyer was portrayed as innocent and inquisitive, and witness as low-toned and "guilty-sounding" to put it mildly. Their every stutter was reproduced, as if to discredit them (possibly correctly so).

I can see why he does it. It makes the feature less dull and staid than 'he said', 'she said'. But it isn't responsible journalism in my opinion. The absence of broadcast proceedings should not be taken by the media as a licence for creative reporting.

The veteran court reporters and legal correspondents are always the most adept. Mary Carolan's name is a byword for reliable reporting.

On the opposite end of the scale, there is in the print media a legal affairs correspondent whose articles on high-profile cases are invariably infused with petty barbs, personal opinions, and glaring errors. I would consider this far less acceptable than the creative narration of hearings.

There's no question of any of anything illegal happening. It's about responsible reporting, which is an objective that the courts cannot single-handedly execute.

Robbo

conorh91 wrote: »

I can see why he does it. It makes the feature less dull and staid than 'he said', 'she said'. But it isn't responsible journalism in my opinion. The absence of broadcast proceedings should not be taken by the media as a licence for creative reporting.

The veteran court reporters and legal correspondents are always the most adept. Mary Carolan's name is a byword for reliable reporting.

On the opposite end of the scale, there is in the print media a legal affairs correspondent whose articles on high-profile cases are invariably infused with petty barbs, personal opinions, and glaring errors. I would consider this far less acceptable than the creative narration of hearings.

There's no question of any of anything illegal happening. It's about responsible reporting, which is an objective that the courts cannot single-handedly execute.

That wouldn't be #supremecourtbantz #supposedbuzzinthelawlibrary #forcedhashtag by any chance?