new. in england and wales, that is. we can pick apart what will happen there, we can talk to daniel stanford, he was standing by for us. good to see you, daniel. talk us through the history of cameras in courtrooms. in through the history of cameras in courtroom-— through the history of cameras in courtrooms. . ., . ., , courtrooms. in england and wales, we are stilljust — courtrooms. in england and wales, we are stilljust dipping _ courtrooms. in england and wales, we are stilljust dipping our— courtrooms. in england and wales, we are stilljust dipping our toes - courtrooms. in england and wales, we are stilljust dipping our toes in - are stilljust dipping our toes in the water of the cameras in court, compared to other countries, but you will remember in 1984, the case of 0j will remember in 1984, the case of oj simpson in a trial that on trial for murder. it was a huge spectacle, watched at great length, notjust in america, but all around the world. -- 1994. america, but all around the world. "1994. it america, but all around the world. —— 1994. it also set off some warning signals forjudges and ministers hear about the concerns that possibly the tella foundation of that case, then it actually alters the case, and how it was conducted, that witnesses behaved slightly differently. had the lawyers themselves behave differently because of the presence of those cameras in court? that was actually something that sowed a seed in minds of the people developing a
indicates that she regards his actions as disrespectful to the court and the sentencing hearing will go ahead in his absence. cashman's family have also not turned up today, but we have been told that david mclachlan, casey, who was the case you prosecuted the case against thomas cashman, has been speaking for the prosecution and submitted that the minimum sentence should be a starting point of the 30 years. that is what the sentencing guidelines say for an aduu sentencing guidelines say for an adult were firearm is used in a murder case, 30 years as a start. the prussian dismay prosecution is starting to outline their case for the lines that the prosecution that the lines that the prosecution that the team take. thomas cashman is 34, so even if he gets years 30 and a minimum, that means he could still be in prison until his mid—605. thank you very much. just give us an idea of timing, if you have them? are no is a difficult question, but the delays that you have already
policy here, as they started to consider whether or not we ought to go down the route of cameras in court, and it was really what set the framework for what came over the next few years. the framework for what came over the next few veere— next few years. fascinating. what do ou make next few years. fascinating. what do you make of — next few years. fascinating. what do you make of this _ next few years. fascinating. what do you make of this case, _ next few years. fascinating. what do you make of this case, where - next few years. fascinating. what do you make of this case, where we - next few years. fascinating. what do you make of this case, where we are | you make of this case, where we are now, daniel? with because making a decision thatjudge can of course be viewed in this instance. what viewed in this instance. what happened — viewed in this instance. what happened next, _ viewed in this instance. what happened next, after- viewed in this instance. what happened next, after the - viewed in this instance. what happened next, after the oj l viewed in this instance. wiegt happened next, after the oj simpson case, there was consideration here as to what should happen here. there was an experiment in the court of appeal in 2004, that was the experiment in which the public did not say, butjudges and journalists sat down together, and considered whether or not this was something they wanted to proceed with. in 2009, the new uk supreme court started operating, they did have cameras in the courts, right from the very beginning. of course, appeal court and supreme court cases are quite different to criminal trials because there are not really witnesses and there is not really an opportunity for lawyers to showboat because it is justjudges there