Is it fair to call Court Reporters ‘rats’?


“What you wrote in those papers has destroyed my 16-year-old. You’re a rat”. Those words whispered into the ear of most professionals would be a cause for concern, but for many journalists this is not such an unexpected occurrence, particularly for those of us who report on court cases. I am not sure I am especially rodent-like, but I recognise the general anger which reporting often causes in those who are written about. Similarly, I recognise the allegation that press coverage destroys the lives of their relatives, particularly children. It is difficult to know how to respond to this accusation, because it is so non-specific that I cannot be sure which part of the article is in issue. The only response I can offer is a general response to the most common criticisms levelled at the court reporter. It may be a poor answer to the tragedy and raw emotion from which formed the context of those words. It is, however, the best I can do.There is sign which reads ‘press’ on a table set up in court. Minds far wiser than our own decided the media should be able to report on court cases. That includes adult criminal courts, youth courts, inquests, employment tribunals and even the sensitive cases heard in the family courts, particularly in recent years. Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, quoting Jeremy Bentham, said in Scott v Scott [1913] AC 407, 477: “Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial.”“The rule of law is a fine concept but fine words butter no parsnips. How is the rule of law itself to be policed? It is an age old question. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes — who will guard the guards themselves? “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.”