SHOULD television cameras be allowed into Scottish court rooms on a routine basis?

That was the question being addressed by Holyrood's Justice Committee yesterday. The fact that members of the legal profession and those who speak for different parts of the justice system are bitterly divided on this issue is a reflection of its complexity.

Criminal trials have fascinated people for centuries. Courtroom drama is a deliberately ambiguous term and criminal proceedings are frequently the subject matter of plays, films and novels. There is little doubt that cameras in court would be good for ratings, especially during the most gruesome and salacious trials, and those involving celebrity defendants or witnesses. But would they be good for justice?

Though judges have had the power to allow restricted filming in Scottish courts since 1992, the power has been deployed only rarely. In the most recent instance – the sentencing of David Gilroy for the murder of Suzanne Pilley – the experiment was so restricted as to be virtually pointless. The sight of a wigged judge reading a sentence hardly adds to the public understanding of the judicial process.

Those who favour extending and regularising the experiment certainly have logic on their side. It is a cornerstone of justice that it is not only done but is seen to be done. As trials are widely reported and those attending trials even permitted to tweet their observations, why not go further?

It could help to give the public a more complete insight into the institution, as televising the Westminster and Holyrood parliaments has done. However, as ever, one must pay attention to the law of unintended consequences. Juries might find it even harder to refrain from discussing a case if the proceedings are being beamed live into every sitting room. If the current restricted coverage were to be extended, would it make witnesses less willing to take the stand, especially in cases involving violence or intimidation? Could it encourage grandstanding on the part of layers, witnesses or even the accused. The way Anders Breivik was able to use his trial for the murder of his 77 victims in Norway as a platform for his perverted views was sickening.

Restricting the cameras to cases without juries and giving judges discretion to exclude cameras in sensitive cases, such as rape trials, would certainly help. The argument that selective televising of a trial risks distorting the proceedings holds little water as the same applies to some blogging and reporting of sensational trials. However, those who argue for greater regulation on reporting and social media are not only trying to halt an unstoppable tide. They risk losing sight of the function of public courts in holding the legal system to account. As for the television cameras, the answer perhaps is to continue the incremental expansion of the experiment and beware of unplanned consequences. Ultimately fairness must trump openness.