Court Reporting

zorro | 15.01.2007 20:25

If you read a Victorian court report in a news paper of that time you could think it was a copy of the stenographers,not that there was one.

Skynews publishes on it's website the transcript of the London bomb plot on the 21/7.But they are heavily edited.Some parts are "unintelligable".Transcripts are the first thing any defence council use to look for grounds to appeal.And that occurs after the trial and verdict.To publish what is purported to be a transcript implies a verbatim copy of the proceedings.One can assume that people who know the jury,if not the jury themselves will read it,Sky being a well known and used site.This is another nail in the coffin of justice.

zorro

Comments

Hide the following 5 comments

?

15.01.2007 21:37

I'm not sure what your point is.

I doubt that the transcript has come from the court officials or even represents a final and official document.

The jurors will be isolated from the media reports.

Or did I miss something here?

Puta

the point

15.01.2007 22:32

as i see he makes is it can be taken as the absolut truth of proceedings

sardonicus

regardless

15.01.2007 23:49

of final or official.The reality in this age is -we are internet savvy,we read online.If we are jurors we look for ourselves,it is the nature of us,humans.In the ever faster speeding world we endevour to keep up with our selves.

zorro

Addition

16.01.2007 15:16

And a policeman can't arrest you if he hasn't got his hat on.

This article is utter nonsense.

Man in the Pub

On the other hand...

16.01.2007 18:36

It seems a good idea putting the full transcripts on the internet to me.

It's not prejudicial as what is being said in the case is being heard by the jury, so it is not going to warp the outcome (like biased coverage before the trial can). It's not information that is top secret and private as court cases are public - you can go along with a notepad yourself, if you like, and if you can turn up early enough to get a seat. Newspapers can't print the whole things because of lack of space / readers' finite interest, but the transcripts are good material for the internet.

And I don't know what you're on about when it comes to the appeal. As far as I was aware, appeals were heard by judges - not by juries. The judges are also given all the details of the original cases, so it can then be pointed out why the conviction was wrong. It's not going to affect them either. But let me know if I've got my crown court details on that confused.

In any case, Sky's decision is not really a nail in the coffin of the legal system, is it? If anything, it's a happy day for internet freedom and transparency of the legal system. Justice must be done and it must be seen to be done.

(Incidentally, I'm willing to bet that it's only a matter of days before the conspiraloons start copying and pasting lines off Sky from the defence speeches to *prove* that the bombings were a false flag operation plotted by MI5, the Illuminati, the Masons, the CIA, Mossad, the Royal family and the lizard people...)

Anyway, thanks for the heads up - have never visited the Sky website before but will now look at it more regularly...

Norville B