Redundancy Consultation?

[KidKruger]

Going by ianr's link looks like I broke the law.

Oops.

Anyone else ever broke the law ?

[womanofdulwich]

my employers have broken the law! will now have to spend lots of money to prove it.

[Shaggy]

Contempt of court isn't like being caught on the motorway doing 71. If a judge catches somebody recording proceedings (especially somebody who should know better,) the judge is likely to be more than a little annoyed and that person WILL get the book thrown at them and will get a prison sentence.

[Huguenot]

It's a peculiar law - what's the justification?

With a public gallery and the right to take notes, it seems that you are allowed to 'record' what takes place, just not very acccurately.

Most strange.

[KidKruger]

'ppreciate the warning Shaggy.

[Shaggy]

I'm going to leave it after this as its not really related to somebody's horrible work stress.

You can't take notes in the public gallery. If you do the judge won't go mad but an usher will often stop you and exclude you from court. Some courts police this more thoroughly than others. At the Bailey they are assiduous. At Southwark Crown Court, where the press tend to use the public gallery, the officials assume that anybody with a notebook is a reporter and don't stop anybody.

Journalists can take notes (they are working from within the well of the court, on the press bench,) and participants can takes notes. But there is no way people can "record" proceedings from the public gallery, either on a tape recorder on in a notebook. You say people can record "not very accurately." This is certainly not the case. As I said above, court reporters should have good shorthand. They are under an obligation to the court to ensure their story IS both fair and accurate. Being accurate is the reporter's problem, not the court's. So if a court reporter "records" proceedings "not very accurately" they could end up in trouble if their mistake is relevant or unfair. Defence lawyers are particularly good at highlighting what they call inaccurate reporting to get cases thrown out because of prejudicial reporting.

And, many people don't know this, but the court artist isn't even allowed to draw in court. She can't even make preliminary sketches. She has to do her pictures from memory.

When you sitting in the public gallery, you are there to SEE justice being done, not to RECORD justice being done. Going beyond this is likely to get you kicked out, although using a recording device or a camera will get you time if you are caught. Even the recent rule allowing tweeting from court (at the Judge's discretion, following an application from the media) is restricted to reporters.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's a peculiar law - what's the justification?

>

> With a public gallery and the right to take notes,

> it seems that you are allowed to 'record' what

> takes place, just not very acccurately.

>

> Most strange.

[Huguenot]

I see your point, and I'm not trying to confuse issues - but I think it's all relevant.

I don't doubt the accuracy of your statements - I'm just saying that it seems silly.

Communication is as much about tone as it is about word selection, this is what I meant by journalists recording 'not very acccurately' when taking notes.

Similarly a memory is a 'record' of justice taking place, and this is what I meant in referring to the public gallery.

I assume that in normal circumstances the majority of the population would be allowed in the public gallery in the majority of cases? This means that the only restriction on the amount of people in the public gallery is the physical restrictions of space?

Hence this all seems totally inconsistent - by having a public gallery everyone is 'allowed' to know the proceedings of a case (including tone) - so the prevention of recording devices seems totally arbitrary.

[KidKruger]

Perhaps WomanofDulwich can safely assume that any recordings she makes will not land her in prison, especially if she uses them for personal fact checking i.e. no distribution without recorded party's permission.

[womanofdulwich]

FYI

I did not record it.

But I wondered about it!