Call for public money to expand court reporting in UK local newspapers

Public funding should be considered to help ensure the future of court reporting in the UK.

That’s according to a new study of how the UK’s local press covers the courts.

Richard Jones of the University of Huddersfield interviewed 22 journalists from across the country, and his findings have just been published in the academic journal Journalism Practice.

He discovered that court reporting has held up fairly well despite the financial challenges facing newspapers, with daily local titles still staffing the courts when they can - even if cuts mean a journalist has to combine the courts beat with being a crime reporter too.

Court reporters have also embraced using Twitter and liveblogs to cover cases, helping to make sure court stories are among the most visible on local paper websites.

Yet they are now often the only game in town, with very few agencies and freelancers regularly working in courts outside London as editorial budgets continue to shrink.

Court reporting being squeezed out

Journalists interviewed said they rarely had any company on the press bench at all, and sometimes go months without seeing any other reporters.

When other journalists do attend, it’s usually on the back of stories originally published by a newspaper - meaning local court reporters are effectively acting as the free research arm of media companies from PA to the BBC.

Jones argues that an expansion of the licence fee-funded Local Democracy Reporting Service should be considered, to maintain and enhance court coverage.

He said: “Covering the courts is a classic part of local journalism. But we are now increasingly reliant on the major local press companies to keep it going - and their financial struggles have been well documented.

Worrying implications for open justice

“If local newspapers are not able to staff the courts as often, there is nobody else who will adequately fill that gap.

“Fewer court reporters would have a huge impact on open justice. They are literally the only eyes and ears the public has in our courts.”

Journalists interviewed for the study also called for better court lists, improved facilities at court buildings including press rooms, and more consistent help from the Crown Prosecution Service in making evidence such as CCTV clips available for publication.