What was the judge thinking when she did that? The usual rationale is that cameras in the courtroom serve the cause of public transparency. But transparency is already achieved by having journalists in the courtroom, reporting the case as news. When you put cameras in there as well, the public is encouraged to binge-watch the proceedings as if they were a form of entertainment. This can have disastrous results, both legally and morally.

You’d have thought this point was settled for good in 1995, when Judge Lance Ito let cameras into his courtroom to cover the murder trial of O. J. Simpson. There was of course no YouTube then. But CNN and Court TV offered live “gavel to gavel” coverage of the Simpson trial, and their ratings went off the Richter. When the gavel fell at the end of each day, legal experts came on to tell you which side was winning, like Gorilla Monsoon offering a play-by-play analysis of a wrestling match.

When people shout abuse at a real-life human being as if she were a stage villain, they cross a number of lines that really shouldn’t be crossed, if we want civilisation to continue.

During the Simpson trial, the idea that live TV coverage would promote “transparency” was exposed as a furphy. In fact, the presence of the cameras radically changed the nature of what happened in the courtroom. The lawyers for both sides played to the cameras, not the jury.

When inadmissible evidence was discussed in the jury’s absence, the lawyers played to the cameras even more, knowing that everything the TV audience saw would soon get back to the jurors, who were permitted to receive weekly conjugal visits at their hotel. The lawyers correctly assumed that the jurors, after conjugating, would discuss the case with their partners, who would be bang up-to-date with the TV coverage.

In Australia, we seem better at distinguishing solemn legal proceedings from soap opera. When Aussie celebrities sue for defamation, their fans don’t hoot and holler outside the courthouse. As for cameras in court, we generally don’t allow them. During the Covid lockdowns, when the public wasn’t allowed into courtrooms, our conventions were temporarily relaxed, and proceedings that wouldn’t normally have been broadcast were live-streamed online.

Loading

I’ll admit that I did try binge-watching one or two of these cases, during the darkest days of lockdown. They were gratifyingly tedious. If anyone involved was playing to the cameras, it didn’t show. The lawyers and judges looked as bored as I was. And that is surely how things should be. The law should be too deliberate and detail-oriented to serve as a viable spectator sport.

Depp v. Heard has been called a “media circus.” I refuse to use that term myself – not because I have a high opinion of the way the trial went, but because I have a high opinion of circuses. Circuses are fun for the whole family. Their only purpose is to entertain you. Unless something goes drastically wrong on the high-wire, nobody gets hurt.

In the matter of Depp v. Heard, everybody got hurt. Nobody won, and everybody was diminished, including those of us who tuned in believing we would be harmlessly entertained.