Kathy Foley

March 23rd, 2008

Copy as filed, not as published

Suffering from the perennial complaint of having hundreds of TV
channels but finding there’s nothing on? You could soon have something
new to watch, if a senior garda gets his way. Paschal Feeney, the
president of the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors (AGSI)
wants murder and kidnapping trials to be televised. It is, he says,
“high time that the general public became more fully aware of the
carry-on” in Irish courts.

Unfortunately – because it would have made for truly entertaining
television – Feeney didn’t mean there is carry on in the courts in a
Carry On Judging sort of way, with lusty old judges, skimpily dressed
stenographers and a steady flow of ooh-err missus double entendres
from senior counsels.

Instead, he seems to think day-to-day goings-on in the Four Courts are
more like scenes from Chicago, with guilty-as-sin defendants skipping
free from justice, having given ‘em the old razzle dazzle in the court
room. Irish trials should be televised, he said, so the rest of us
could see “the histrionics, the antics and the showmanship and they
should also see the venality and, where it exists, the nobility.”

His idea is laudable, in a way. Most people rarely experience the
rarified and arcane environment of the courts and are even less likely
to encounter a gangland thug at close quarters so would welcome an
insight into this world. But while Feeney seems to think that a
certain class of lowlifes and scumbags will put on a good show, I’m
concerned that most Irish trials are just not going to make good
telly.

As a wet-behind-the-ears cub reporter, I spent time in the courts
(mainly to practice my shorthand, I have to admit) and the reality,
even of a murder trial, proved to be a bit of a let-down. Nobody once
shouted “Objection!” or “Out of order!” or “You can’t handle the
truth” and I didn’t see a single impassioned address to the jury.
Instead, legal argument about seemingly inconsequential scraps of
evidence dragged on for hours, if argument is the right word for
lengthy, lifeless exchanges between droning barristers and mumbling
witnesses.

I certainly wouldn’t have watched any of the cases I attended had they
been broadcast. Compelling courtroom dramas they were not. Televised
toenail clipping contests would have made for racier viewing.

Without question, some drastic improvements are needed before Feeney’s
idea would work in practice. Our judges, for example, are woefully
lacking in razzmatazz, with the possible exception of Judge John
Neilan, who is given to making bizarre sweeping statements about the
dangers posed by women, the likelihood of “coloured people” being
banned from shopping centres and, most recently, the incompetence of
Courts Service staff.

He’s pretty much guaranteed to deliver one wildly controversial rant
per court case so I know I’d happily settle on the couch, glass of
wine in hand, to enjoy my weekly fix of Neilan Dispenses Justice.

Mostly, though, Irish judges are a ponderous old bunch and I’m not
sure their windy pontificating will really hold viewers’ attention. I
wonder if we could invite Judge Judy, the caustic queen of American
court reality shows, to show our men and women in black how to turn in
a ratings-grabbing performance. She wouldn’t have too much patience
for the time-wasting dissembling favoured by Irish defendents.

“So you shot and killed the victim on December 3rd last?”
“Jaysus no. Nuttin’ to do wit’ me.”
“Baloney! I can clearly see you holding the gun in this image from a
CCTV camera at the scene.”
“Ah yeah. Well, yeh see the ting is dat I was just holdin’ the gun for
me mate while he went into de shop. He was after sayin’ to me it was a
toy belonged to one of the chisellers.”
“Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining! You shot the guy!
Twenty years in Mountjoy. Get outta my court.”

Irish judges will have to wise up and realise that’s the sort of
rat-a-tat judging they’ll have to engage in if Court TV Ireland is
going to be a hit.

Any teenager who dreams of making it onto You’re A Star knows they
need to put in the hours at home singing into hairbrushes and prancing
through dance routines of their own devising. Our senior judicial
figures might want to follow that lead and spend some time in front of
the mirror, practising stern looks and gavel banging.

Our barristers, too, are lacking a bit in the star quality department.
Audiences who tune in for televised trials expecting to swoon over
dashing, idealistic lawyers like Matthew McConaughey in A Time To Kill
are going to be sorely disappointed when they find they’re stuck with
lingering closeups of Michael McDowell.

There’s hope in that department, however. They’ve been moaning down
the Law Library recently about the number of new entrants to the
profession – numbers have quadrupled from 600 in 1998 to a projected
2,400 by the end of 2009. But while the Bar Council has been bleating
on about the threat this explosion in numbers poses to the
independence of the Irish bar, it’s failing to see the upside. An
influx of attractive young barristers is exactly what the profession
needs to sex it up in advance of trials being televised.

Of course, it doesn’t really matter how many telegenic barristers
emerge from Kings Inns. Court cases need defendants and witnesses to
proceed and, once the cameras are in situ, that could be a problem.
Martin Cahill was memorable among crime lords for actively seeking
infamy, but plenty of gangland figures won’t be so keen to have it
thrust upon them. They’ll resort to every blocking tactic possible to
make sure they can keep their histrionics, antics and showmanship off
the TV screens.

Furthermore, numerous trials have already become mired in difficulty
or even collapsed because witnesses were too scared to testify, either
refusing to appear or staying schtum on the stand. It’s not going to
improve matters if wary witnesses have to deliver their testimony
under the unrelenting glare of the television cameras. Not everyone
wants to be a reality TV star.