02/10/2012 Newsnight Scotland

They have been wondering why they voted for him and I don't think

they are tonight. Thank you very much.

Tonight more on Ed Miliband's vision of One Nation. We assess the

defend the Union des at the Labour Party conference. I sentence you as

I am required by law to do... Television cameras in court,

leading lawyers line up to say No But are the courts meeting the

challenges of the digital age? Good evening. Faith, soul, spirt,

vision. For a confirmed atheist, some of the language of Ed

Miliband's speech bordered on the religious. And not so long ago, the

use by a Labour leader of the great Tory idea of One Nation might have

been considered blasphemous. But perhaps he was observing the

evangelical tone of conference as it spread the word, flew the flag

and beat the drum in defence of the United Kingdom. Our Westminster

Correspondent Tim Reid has compiled Politicians who believe in it have

long talk of reclaiming the Union flag from the far right. One

Diamond Jubilee and a summer of sporting glory have provided the

opportunity and Labour's fluttering conference colours show it has been

grabbed with both hands. Rebuilding Britain is the theme in Manchester.

Keeping the flag and Britain as One Nation is on many minds as well.

Four Scottish leadership the battle lines are being drawn, painting the

SNP as a party helping the Tories to reflect painful cuts. Labour are

leading the fight to save the Union. The strength to overcome the

challenges of our time come from binding together, not breaking

apart. That is as true of the challenge we face as a nation as it

is of those we face in our families, our towns and our cities.

Conference, this is what separates us from the Tories and it is what

separates us from the SNP. This morning delegates were bathing

in Team GB's Olympic and Paralympic successes, hence so many Union

flags around the conference hall. They also help to illustrate Ed

Miliband's Fiennes as the attacked the SNP for invoking the Olympic

spirit. I don't believe that Solidarity stops at the border. I

care as much about a young person unemployed in Motherwell as I do

about a young person unemployed here in Manchester. We have got

common bonds. We have got deep bonds with each other. The people

of Scotland and the people of the rest of the United Kingdom. Either

way, if you think about the people of Scotland and the Olympic Games,

they weren't cheering on just the Scottish athletes of Team GB, they

were cheering on all the athletes of Team GB. As he fleshed out his

One Nation theme for the party and United Kingdom, he signalled that

he and Labour would be leading the campaign to defeat Scottish

independence. A party that claims to be left on Centre -- of centre

would not turn its back on the solidarity and a common bond of the

United Kingdom. Friends, it is up to us. It is up to us. We, the

Labour Party must be the people who fight defend and win the battle for

the United Kingdom. The One Nation idea is a phrase borrowed from the

Tories and perhaps when do the Scottish leader any favours as she

tries to that of accusations of the SNP that she is a Tory, ordering a

review of universal benefits like free prescriptions and have council

tax freeze. It was Alex Salmond has said that Scotland did not mind

Thatcher's economic policies. It was Alex Salmond who pushed through

four years of Tory budgets one in government and it was Alex Salmond

who cheered David Cameron into Number Ten because it suited his

political argument in full knowledge of the consequences for

families across Scotland. She also defended her demands for an

examination of just how affordable the Scottish government's policies

really are. Not everyone is going to like the solutions, that is

unavoidable. I will be straight with people now about what is to

come and I will be true to Labour values that we will not allow those

who most need our support to pay the price for populist slogans.

Joanna Lamont needs to hope that her straight-talking does not turn

people away from her party. For Labour this conference says some of

the mood music for the referendum campaign ahead. As pro-union

politicians would ever closer against independence, they wish to

persuade voters that the union and its parties know best.

I'm joined from Salford by the political commentator, David

Torrance, who was in the conference hall today for all those speeches.

Hello, thank you for coming in. First of all, how did Ed Miliband

pitches argument for Scotland staying within the UK? He was

pitching it within the context of One Nation. I happen to think that

stealing, not borrowing, that mantle from the Conservatives is

shaping up to be a pretty shrewd move. It is not only because it

helps to knit together different strands of Ed Miliband agenda,

including the constitutional Strand, but also because it is a much more

convincing argument coming from the Labour Party which has strong

support in each part of the UK except Northern Ireland. Compared

to the Conservatives who simply do not. Who do you think he is trying

to reach out to and which ground is do several things. He was tried to

reassure his own supporters. There were until this afternoon, and I

think the speech has removed lingering doubts in some quarters,

about whether Ed Miliband was up to the job. He is also trying to reach

out to people who deserted Labour chiefly over the Iraq war so he was

pitching it to the left. Whether that works remains to be seen. One

speech does not make a strategy or an election victory but if he can

keep it up, he might be on to something. Combining with that with

Joe and Lamont's speech today, what do you think the message is that

Scotland wants to send out to that conference? Pretty much the Jaime -

- pretty much the same. They are getting act together and it is safe

to say that the Scottish Labour Party has not always appeared that

way. They are working together and they are developing a coherent

narrative which takes in Scotland, Wales and England although Wales

did not get a distinct mention this afternoon. In political terms, they

are trying to recapture territory that perhaps they have let slip

away. What do you think is the challenge in that ahead?

challenge is sustaining it. It was one speech and it went down very

well in the hall. The media tomorrow I suspect will be

uniformly positive but of course there is, as ever, a disconnect

between the the political bubble, the political classes, and our

assessment, and what the normal voters may conflict. Very little of

what Ed Miliband and the other speakers said today would get

through to other voters. If they can sustain the narrative and the

message over the next two years it might well have an effect. Thank

you very much will. Justice, of course, is blind. So

maybe that's why many who work in our courts are so opposed to

allowing cameras to film criminal trials. But don't the rest of us

have a right to see justice in action? Or is that just special

pleading from the media? Today leading lawyers lined up to tell

MSPs why the cameras should be kept out of the court room. But how does

our court service deal with the growing challenges of the digital

age and the growing expectations of broadcasters and their audiences.

Jamie McIvor's been looking at some of the issues.

Court TV. Commonplace in the United States. Rare in Scotland. Never

comparable to media frenzies like the OJ Simpson trial. In April the

sentencing of David Gilroy for the murder of a woman was filmed.

sentence you as I am required by law to do, to life imprisonment.

But the proceedings of a trial itself have never been approved for

the Day broadcast. There is a debate about whether televising

trials would be fair to the accused and another worry is over

protection for witnesses. Today MSPs heard some of the concerns.

There is a real danger that if cameras are allowed in without

limitations that they will succeed in trivialising the proceedings and

reduce them to the OJ Simpson... Why should it be for a television

company to put together some kind of package of what it thinks

happened in the trial, of what it thinks the evidence amounted to,

and show it to the public at large and say, this one has been

acquitted by you decide for yourselves! You have a go! You try

If this is the easiest caught from Seville in in Scotland because it

is not a real one, it is for is not a real one, it is for

students. Away from the debate about televising courtroom

proceedings, broadcasters face practical difficulties reporting

trials, especially when it comes to things like CCTV pictures or

photographs. Production seen in open court by members of the jury

and often by anyone in the public gallery.

Malcolm Webster was convicted last year of murdering his first wife

and trying to kill his second. Only at the end of the trial, where

broadcasters able to show images seen in court, like the band out

car in which his first wife was murdered. The Malcolm Webster trial

is a good example of a case where we actually got very good access to

some of the key pieces of evidence that were sent to the jury in the

course of the trial. We were only given those right at the end of the

trial for use once he was convicted, for the background piece. Day-in,

day-out, I've covered that trial and often the jury were shown

something in the course of that morning, but I could not show the

public. I had to come outside and describe what the jury was shown.

If any member of the public could wander into court and see for

themselves what the jury was being shown, there are monitors up around

the court, but I was not able to show the public on television. He

he but in England and Wales, it is much more clear cut. For instance,

last year, John Cooper was convicted of two double murders in

Wales and the 1980s. In this case, productions where even put on line

for a journalist to access. might notice that if you watch some

coverage from trials south of the border, they are able to show

sometimes, CCTV footage that is shown to the jury that same day. We

are never given productions to show at that time, it is always said the

end of the trial if we get them at all. But in the internet age, what

restrictions are actually workable? Earlier this year, during a in

England was found guilty of contempt and jailed. She had gone

on line to try to find out about the defendant. Just what rules are

actually realistic? And the interests of justice be balanced

against the interests of journalism in in era of myth Joerg -- era of

the internet and winter are hour news?

I am joined now by the QC Derek Ogg who is highly regarded in Scotland

for his prosecuting and record in defence. What should happen, do you

think, about access to productions? There was interested to see the

piece on the Web so trial because are prosecuted that and authorise

the release of productions at the end of the trial. To be honest, I

would be a happy to release them during the trial, it did not make

the slightest difference. Sometimes releasing production during a trial

can influence the trial because witnesses who are yet to give

evidence might be influenced. It could influence their memory, about

the colour of the car they saw, things like that. There are some

practical considerations that do not apply in all trials. Aynho

there is a committee that the Crown Office has with the police and the

BBC and other media outlets looking at this. Like all committees, it

goes on for ever doing it. I served on it once about three years ago.

Everyone chatted very nicely about English protocols, but never came

up with anything. I think I would adopt English protocols. How do

they vary from here in practice? allows photographic productions,

physical productions that are shown in court and spoken to by witnesses

to be seen on the day of the trial that the jury see it. That is

allowed in England. What do you think is the advantage of that?

think the advantage is just as your reporter was saying, it make sense

of the story that the public who are hearing it. The broadcaster has

a duty to fairly and properly represent what happened in court.

That is your duty, it is difficult to do that in the modern age if so

much of what is represented in court is digital or imagery all

CCTV. In the olden days everything was oral evidence. You could report

that very easily, but doing something which involves reference

to CCTV, videos, forensic science imagery, that sort of thing, it own

innate sense and is comprehensible if it can be shown. You have been

sympathetic to this, that is not always the case. To the

journalistic bills arbitrary to what they get access to at the

moment. See you think there is a challenge needed in Scotland?

think we are a bit in the dark Ages partly because there has been

pressure between the media and the law. The press just want to report

what is sensational and get people's juices going, get people

worked up about things and that really has been a fear that lawyers

have had. We feel that, to do justice, juries have to do it

justice, and they should be left alone to do this as Crawley and

calmly as possible. Acourt is a jury's place of work for the time

they are doing the job. If the press are constantly looking for a

salacious angle and another photograph, a dramatic image, then

it is interfering when the jury goes home and sees all of this on

TV, it interferes with their comprehension and calmness with

which they approach. So where does this leave you with televising

trials? I am dead against televising. I have not met one

trial lawyer, I have been a prosecutor and was dead against it

for years, I was a defence lawyer and dead against it as a defence

lawyer. I have not what the prosecutor all defence lawyer who

is for it. If the only people for it are those who have never

conducted a trial. I can't see a single advantage to it. I know that

it is considered modern and people can go into a court and see

everything, so why can't return on the TV and see everything? If he

never will because you know they are taste and decency rules meaning

you cannot broadcast everything in the court. Trials where people are

swearing, way you have every single sex trial, you would not be able to

broadcast because of the anonymity of the complainer. He would not be

able to broadcast the details of the sexual act because of taste and

decency, so a huge area of trial law, representing 40% of High Court

trials, you would never be able to broadcast anyway. We have to leave

it there. Derek Ogg, thank you for coming in. If that is it until

tomorrow. Let me give you a quick whizz through the papers. The

Independent is leading with Newt CCTV puts human rights at risk. The