Courtroom research provides rich insights into the operation of the criminal justice system and the administration of the law. I have been attending court proceedings since 2022, during which time I have utilised in-person observation of courtroom processes as a methodology to understand how individuals charged with terrorism-related offences are represented at trial. Initially, I thought this methodology would be relatively easy to utilise - courtrooms, legal hearings, and trials are open to the public after all!

In reality, conducting research in the courts is strewn with unexpected hurdles, from not being able to hear the proceedings, to not even being able to get a seat in the courtroom. However, the largest barrier to locating and attending relevant trials relates to a lack of transparency of upcoming legal hearings.

Beschreibung des Bildes — Old Bailey, London. March 7th, 2024

The notion of Open Justice plays a significant role in the administration of justice in UK jurisdictions. Defined as ‘the principle that justice should be administered in public’ (House of Commons, 2022: 4), Open Justice underscores the necessity of transparency in legal processes, seeks to build public trust in the administration of justice, and hold the criminal justice system to account. The central role of this principle was underscored the landmark case R (Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court [2012] EWCA Civ 420:

‘In a democracy, where power depends on the consent of the people governed, the answer must lie in the transparency of the legal process. Open justice lets in the light and allows the public to scrutinise the workings of the law, for better or for worse’.

With this in mind, I was baffled to discover that- in England and Wales, at least- there is no accessible database which allows researchers to search for upcoming relevant cases. Such tool would enable researchers the freedom to know which cases are coming up, decide if they are relevant to their work, and schedule accordingly. The absence of such tool means that, in my work, just finding cases which align with my research is a challenge.

I have found that the communication of upcoming proceedings comes from two main sources: online listings or news coverage.

Online court listings detail the proceedings to be held in each court the next day. These listings generally provide details of the case which are limited to the name(s) of the defendant, the time and courtroom which the proceedings will be held in, and the stage of the legal proceedings to take place (trial, plea hearing, or sentencing, for example). However these listings do not detail the substance of the case, such as the offences the defendant is accused of, meaning that researchers may still be unsure if the case is relevant to their work. There have been several instances where I have waited at court for one case, unaware that another relevant case was occurring either next door or on the floor above!

For these lists to be useful, researchers need to have a clear understanding of the cases they wish to attend and must maintain flexible funding and commitments to drop everything and go to court on short notice. In this case, get familiar with your local court- what types of crimes tend to be heard there? Do they align with your research? If not, where might cases relevant for you be heard? Are there lawyers and/or judges who are more likely to be involved in cases relevant to you? If so, can this knowledge help you locate relevant cases?

Alternatively (and my preferred method), news coverage can provide more in-depth insight to relevant cases at the early stages of the legal process, sometimes detailing the expected date and location of the trial. In my work, I have been reliant on news articles which publicise a case relevant to my research. Once I am aware of a case in its early stages- usually because I have seen a journalist or police department share information about it online- I get in touch with the court.

When this system works well, it provides access to relevant court hearings. However, additional problems often arise. This method relies on journalists being present for the plea hearing in the first place, and the declining number of court reporters means that fewer cases are publicized. Court reporters, even when located within the courthouse, have documented similar issues, often missing cases they intended to report on due to a lack of communication regarding upcoming proceedings:

Whether something is or isn’t happening in the courts is impenetrable to the outsider, and sometimes to the insider, too. Every afternoon, the court list for the following day is posted online and on large noticeboards on the ground floor of the Old Bailey, but the list only contains the names of the defendants and the court numbers, with no details of the charges. Clerks must be chased down to fill in the gaps and last-minute alterations often occur: cases are delayed, there aren’t enough judges, defendants don’t show up or are hours late (Elmhirst, 2024).

Media coverage tends to be more beneficial for researchers as it offers comprehensive details about cases and the scheduled dates for hearings. This allows researchers to plan in advance and assess whether the case is relevant to their research- this can be helped by setting search engine alerts for relevant key words or following journalists on social media who may publish details on upcoming cases. Once a relevant case is publicised, get in touch with the relevant court, asking for details about the date of the hearing. Often, this requires some badgering- proceedings can change unexpectedly and- frustratingly- last minute. (In one instance, I travelled down to London for a hearing which had been cancelled at the last minute, wasting a lot of time and money). As much as possible, ensure that the hearing is still due to commence before you travel by getting in touch with the court, or by checking the online court listings.

For researchers looking to conduct court-based research, being aware of potential barriers is the first step in navigating this complex landscape. Researchers can take additional steps, such as setting up search term alerts in their browsers and staying informed about relevant cases on social media. If you plan to attend a specific case, it’s important to keep in touch with the court to ensure the case is proceeding as planned. Additionally, make sure to check the court listings the day before to confirm that the case is scheduled to be heard.

The justice system in England and Wales, while aiming to promote accountability and public trust in legal practices, fails to provide full transparency to researchers. It would be remiss to claim that the courtroom is impossible to research, but it is an environment containing barriers which can be difficult to address, foresee, and mitigate. Researchers are not attempting to navigate a “closed” legal system, but the administration of justice is not “open”- it is translucent.

Court lists:

Xhibit: Daily Crown Court lists - https://xhibit.justice.gov.uk/court_lists.htm

Courtserve: Daily Crown Court, Magistrates Court, County Court and Employment Tribunal lists: https://www.courtserve.net

Old Bailey Insight: Limited contextual information about cases listed to take place in the Old Bailey the current working day: https://old-bailey.com/old-bailey-cases-of-interest/

References:

Court of Appeal, 2012. EWCA Civ 420. Available at: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/guardian-city-of-westminster-mags-03042012.pdf

House of Commons Justice Committee. Open Justice: Court Reporting in the Digital Age. Available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/31426/documents/176229/default/

S, Elmhirst., 2024. Chortle chortle, scribble scribble: inside the Old Bailey with Britain’s last court reporters. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/news/article/2024/jul/11/old-bailey-dying-art-court-reporter-justice

Open Justice and Obscured Access: Barriers to Courtroom Research in England and Wales.

Chloe Squires

Court lists:

Further reading:

References: