An editor has called for Crown Courts to offer “better digital access” to information to help regional newsrooms with limited resources cover cases.
Alan Woods, who edits Essex Live, has made the plea after urging judges to ensure the facts of cases are run through at sentencing hearings, saying his website was being increasingly “caught out” due to prosecutors not doing so.
Alan, pictured, joined Surrey Live senior reporter Alex Boyd in calling out the practice on Twitter, saying that hearing the details of cases being recapped at sentencing was “crucial” in enabling Essex Live to report trials in full.
Speaking to HTFP about the issue, Alan urged the police, prosecutors and judiciary to do more to alert journalists to key sentencing hearings.
The number of times we’ve been caught out by this lately is increasing. We don’t have the resources to cover all crown court trials anymore, so sentencing hearings are crucial for us to report cases in full – such a shame when this happens https://t.co/GquB7aHGIl
— Alan Woods (@woodstorquay) January 24, 2020
He said: “I think better, digital access to live information about what is happening at our crown courts would make the job of a journalist easier and increase the frequency of coverage.
“It’s challenging to establish exactly who is appearing at crown court from listings, so better access to listings for journalists along with information about the charges and the defendant would be a big help. For crown court trials, better, digital access to the progress of the trial would be a step change.
“Whilst websites such as Xhibit give scant details about who is in each courtroom, there are key parts to a trial that it is useful for journalists to attend. To know roughly when the defence case is expected to start or the judge is due to sum up would be extremely helpful, for example.
“Furthermore, better collaboration between the police, the CPS and the judiciary around alerting journalists to key sentencing hearings would be of help.
“It’s often in the interest of the police to receive coverage of a case when an offender has been brought to justice and that is why police media teams issue press releases post-sentencing.
“But editors often want journalists to tell the full story of a case, including the defendant’s mitigation and the judge’s remarks, which don’t come in a press release and can only be heard by attending court.”
Alan went on to say Crown Court trials “present the biggest challenge to regional and local media, simply because of their duration”.
He added: “Some of the more complicated trials, or those with multiple defendants, are listed for up to six weeks and it needs to be an exceptional case to justify covering it in full. At Essex Live, we have committed in the past two years to cover four full-length trials and to live blog them.
“Three of these were murder trials and one was a manslaughter case, with each of them spanning four weeks or more. One lasted for eight weeks.
“However, when you only have limited resources in a newsroom we simply cannot be live blogging four-week trials every month.”
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
Has Reach plc stopped paying dividends? The last time I looked it was a private sector company. It is not the role of the public to fund failing business models.
The public do pay for the courts – why should people’s tax be spent on running through a case because the sometimes local website owned by Big News didn’t cover it properly beforehand.
If the newspaper industry were a car manufacturer it would have been closed down years ago.
Report this comment
Percy’s correct
There’s this ongoing expectation that when a publisher needs funds they can go to the government or public sector for a handout, almost as a divine right.
Rarely a week passes that we don’t see one of the regional group heads pleading poverty and going cap in hand asking for support, money or resources, you’re a business,take responsibility or if you can’t compete,step aside
Many centres had given up reporting on local communities, putting the onus on the public themselves to send material in until fresh new independent publications emerged and took over the market, if anything they’re the ones needing the help, not those who’ve presided over the dismantling of the industry while paying themselves good salaries and fat bonuses whilst doing so.
…..though I’m sure that’s not the case here.
Report this comment
If Essex Live and Reach PLC were really bothered about covering trials they would employ a court reporter or pay a stringer for a copy.
I don’t see why the creaking and underfunded legal system should pander to a private company that has slashed staff and cut its freelance budget – whilst presumably paying bonuses etc to higher ups.
Madness.
Report this comment
Reach’s cost cutting has lowered staff numbers to the point where they’re incapable of having court reporters who can form relationships with court staff who will give them the listings and the information they need, and then they complain because the court service isn’t making up for their own deficiencies?
You couldn’t make it up.
Report this comment
“Please sir, can I have some more?”
What everyone above said
Why do these publishers feel they have a divine right to public funding to prop up ailing business plans ruined by mismanagement and excessive cost cutting over the years.
You want to remain useful and relevant to the public in order to sell papers and attract clicks?
Then staff up accordingly , every other business in every other industry has to.
Report this comment
Perhaps if fewer resources were dedicated to ‘the 30 best looking people in Essex’ and other such tripe (of which there is a considerable amount), time may be freed up to cover the basics from start to finish.
Report this comment
@UGC
You’re forgetting, it’s all about the clicks, likes and comments, or ‘engagement’ as these content heads like to call it, hence the deluge of ICYMI and “top ten places to whatever” irrelevant space filler that’s passed off as news these days.
My advice for the cap doffers forever blaming others for their shortfalls and putting the responsibility on someone else while they look for the next hand out is this;
Better use of resources and employ sufficient and competent staff to do the job
You’re welcome
Report this comment
The under-resourcing of British newsrooms is really a red herring in this debate. Our court system is ludicrously closed and secretive, full stop. Americans cannot believe how poor the access is in the UK. In the US, everything is public. You can access all sorts of documents connected to cases. In the UK, you practically have to threaten some clerks with a legal action before they’ll give you a defendant’s date of birth.
Report this comment
Can’t say I agree TwisV
in my opinion as far as the court systems go nothing’s changed or worsened in recent years, the only difference I can see is a huge swathe of reporters and togs have vanished from the payroll meaning more work for those left behind, this includes greater effort in accessing court and council detail.
It may be different where you are but it’s pretty clear cut to me and was always going to be as a result of excessive newsroom axing
Those who wielded the axe and cut the numbers can’t really complain about it now
Cake and eat it comes to mind
Report this comment
Richardson – I wasn’t necessarily suggesting things have got worse. I was saying that our court system, compared to America’s by way of example, has always been extremely antiquated and closed and secretive. America takes the first amendment and the right to know far more seriously than the UK does. There’s almost nothing you can’t get hold of over there. Here, it genuinely is a fight on many occasions just for a journalist to extract the defendant’s address and DOB – let alone get hold of copies of witness statements and other case files that in America any old member of the public can freely access.
Report this comment