We should all be able to see court cases, says Phil Hall, chairman at PHA Media

I would like to suggest that one of the PR opportunities for the police and the justice system is to at last allow the TV broadcasters in to cover court cases. It is back on the agenda now and why not – after all judges are allowing Twitter feeds to be sent during a trial.

My reasoning is simple. It is so easy to criticise the police, for example, over their role in the recent rioting. Newspapers sit back and slaughter the police force without ever scratching below the surface. Rent-a-quotes are allowed to have their day in the sun and the police cannot defend themselves because of the political issues, operational issues and because they are public servants.

So why not let the public see for themselves what really goes on? We need to understand the trickery, the dishonesty and the violence first hand, and we will only get that if we can see for ourselves what goes on in the courtroom.

I know there will be fears that witnesses will showboat, but in my experience that goes on anyway.

It is also easy to say our prisons are too crowded, be more lenient, or bang them up and throw away the key. But how can we, the public, comment or have a view on such a contentious issue unless we can see it for ourselves?

Sometimes the best PR an organisation can have is to simply give a public airing of its day-to-day operations … and this is a classic example. Let justice be seen to be done in the broadest possible way.

There are going to be issues to iron out. Witnesses may be reluctant to come forward if they know they are going to be on TV. There is also the risk of unbalanced reporting with TV stations only covering the sensational parts of a case. We must also be careful that members of the jury are not swayed by the force of public opinion and concentrate solely on the evidence before them.

You can just hear a commentator saying: “Looking at the sweat on his brow, he is crumbling in the dock.” That would be inappropriate and can clearly lead to complications.

Perhaps the best solution is to allow the setting up of a channel that has lengthy air time. This will ensure unbiased coverage of a trial and only allow the key segments to be broadcast after the case ends.

The shame and public humiliation must surely increase the jeopardy for criminals. Punishments handed out will feel twice as effective when they are so public and the wrongdoer carries the weight of his or her shame around so openly.

We need a commission to look into the pitfalls and to learn from other court broadcasters from around the world.

But I do believe in the overall principle. And what a PR shot-in-the-arm it would be for our law-enforcement agencies.

Phil Hall is chairman of PHA Media and was previously editor of the News of the World.