Heathrow court case won’t be live-streamed but there will be transcripts and maybe link into another court

An application to live-stream a legal proceedings at the High Court on the expansion of Heathrow has been refused at a hearing on 5th February. Justice Hickinbottom ruled that the trial by five claimants, versus the Secretary of State for Transport – set to begin on 11 March for two weeks – could not be live-streamed as the law dating from 1925, and 1981, did not allow for proceedings within the court to be recorded. The Judge agreed that the case was of considerable public interest, and being able to watch hearings live would be a benefit to many people. However, the court will seek to provide another large and accessible additional courtroom for members of the public wishing to watch the proceedings who won’t be able to fit in Court 76. Tweeting from both courtrooms is also to be permitted. Additionally, on application, screening of the proceedings in other courts around the country will be considered, an acknowledgment that the case is of wide public interest, allowing those from other parts of the country to avoid considerable costs of attending the hearings in London – a point acknowledged by Justice Hickinbottom. Transcripts of proceedings will also be published, online, although it remains to be decided as to how costs of these scripts will be apportioned.

.

Landmark ruling on live-streaming Heathrow court case 

5th February 2019

No 3rd Runway Coalition press release

An application to live stream a trial at the High Court on the expansion of Heathrow has been refused at a hearing on Tuesday.

Justice Hickinbottom ruled that the trial by five claimants (1), versus the Secretary of State for Transport – set to begin on 11 March for two weeks – could not be live streamed as the law dating from 1925, and 1981, did not allow for proceedings within the court to be recorded.

However, the court will seek to provide another large and accessible additional courtroom for members of the public wishing to watch the proceedings who won’t be able to fit in Court 76. Tweeting from both courtrooms is also to be permitted.

Additionally, on application, screening of the proceedings in other courts around the country will be considered, an acknowledgment that case if of wide public interest, allowing those from other parts of the country to avoid considerable costs of attending the hearings in London – a point acknowledged by Justice Hickinbottom.

Transcripts of proceedings will also be published, online, although it remains to be decided as to how costs of these scripts will be apportioned.

Paul McGuinness, Chair of the No 3rd Runway Coalition, representing hundreds of thousands of residents who would be negatively impacted by Heathrow expansion, said:

“Whilst we are disappointed with today’s ruling, we welcome several outcomes such as allowing tweeting from the courtroom and potentially permitting screenings of the proceedings in other courts around the country.

“We are pleased that the judges recognised the merits of the case brought forward and the extent of concern at the government’s decision to allow Heathrow to expand.

“This is why so many people consider themselves interested parties in these proceedings, and why a fair few of them will feel let down by this decision not to let them tune in. We will continue to explore legislative opportunities to bring what is a very out-dated law into the 21st Century.”

Jackie Clark, Chair of the Stop Heathrow Expansion group, which is based in the areas that face demolition in the event that the new runway goes ahead, commented:

“Many residents who are set to lose their homes will want to follow the court proceedings closely but may not be able to physically attend the court for a whole range of reasons. So we will be urging claimants to submit an application.”

 

ENDS. 

Notes:

  1. The hearing relates to a claim by Plan B Earth – a climate change charity who are a claimant in the case against the Government’s plans to expand Heathrow – who support a more open justice system on a case of wide public interest.

There are five claimants in the case; the first is the London Borough of Hillingdon (supported by the Mayor of London, the London Boroughs of Hammersmith & Fulham, Hillingdon, Richmond and Wandsworth, the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead and Greenpeace UK), Friends of the Earth, Twickenham resident Neil Spurrier and Heathrow Hub Ltd – a rival scheme for expanding Heathrow. The rolled-up trial begins on 11 March and is expected to last for two weeks.

For more information:

 

.


See earlier:

 

Charity “Plan B” calls for High Court to live-stream Heathrow 3rd runway legal challenge

A High Court challenge to the government’s approval of a Heathrow 3rd runway could be opened up to a mass audience through live-streaming for the first time, if Lord Justice Hickinbottom and Mr Justice Holgate accept a legal argument. Although the Supreme Court has transmitted its hearings since 2009, photography and recording of court proceedings elsewhere are strictly controlled by the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which only permits cases in the court of appeal to be broadcast. Tim Crosland, a barrister who is the director of the anti-climate change charity Plan B, will tell a preliminary hearing on 5 February that live-streaming from the High Court would not involve recording or creating a permanent record and was therefore permissible under the legislation. The legal challenges by environmental groups, local authorities against the DfT is due to be heard in the Royal Courts of Justice in central London over 10 days from 11th March. Only those who attend court would normally be able to hear the arguments. Hearings in the High Court have never previously been broadcast. Crosland said he believed that the more people who listened to the detail of the arguments, the more engaged they would become in environmental concerns. The climate implications of the runway decision are of considerable public interest.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.