Justice on camera - Telegraph Among the most important characteristics of any justice system is openness. We need only consider the furore over the Government's proposals for some evidence in civil cases to be heard in secret, on national security grounds, to see the importance of this principle. Justice must be seen to be done. But does that mean it needs to be seen on television? Yesterday, for the first time, cameras were allowed into a criminal court in Edinburgh, to capture the moment when David Gilroy was jailed for life for the murder of Suzanne Pilley, his former lover. All that appeared on screen was the judge, Lord Bracadale, passing sentence; but now that the cameras are through the door, they are unlikely to depart. The Queen's Speech next month is expected to permit similar experiments in England and Wales, beginning with the Court of Appeal. The proceedings of the Supreme Court are already televised in full - but a criminal hearing is a different matter. The effects will have to be closely monitored: fairness is just as important as openness, and if there is a risk that witnesses will be in any way intimidated, or that the cameras will in any way hinder the administration of justice, they should be switched off. One objection to broadcasting trials will be that it will encourage grandstanding, either by the accused or by others in the courtroom. In Norway this week, Anders Behring Breivik's efforts to exploit his (heavily controlled) TV appearances to justify mass murder to a wider audience have been a sickening demonstration of the power of the courtroom camera. None the less, it is hard to object in principle to televising judgments, closing remarks and sentencing in criminal cases, with appropriate safeguards. There may even be an argument for going further - but only if it can be shown to promote transparency, not prurience.