Cameras in court: where trials can be filmed and where not

Most democracies let the public sit in court, but sitting in the public gallery is not the same as filming from it. Court reporting rules differ sharply from one country to the next. Some US states allow broadcast trials, England and Wales permits only a narrow set of recordings, and Germany bars almost all of them. The debate rests on two principles that pull in different directions: open justice and a fair hearing for everyone involved.

Why the rules differ

Supporters of cameras argue that a camera is simply an extension of the public gallery. It lets people who cannot travel to a courthouse see how decisions are made, and it may build trust in the courts. Opponents worry that cameras change behaviour. Lawyers may play to the audience, witnesses may be frightened into silence, and jurors may feel exposed. Victims and witnesses may also be deterred from coming forward at all.

Most systems therefore settle on a compromise. They allow limited coverage, often of judges rather than witnesses, or of appeals rather than trials. Footage is usually released with conditions attached, and the judge keeps the power to say no.

England and Wales: sentencing remarks only

Filming in court has long been a criminal offence in England and Wales under the Criminal Justice Act 1925. Recording sound without permission is contempt of court under the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Parliament created an exception through the Crown Court (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2020, although the pandemic delayed its use.

On 28 July 2022, a judge's sentencing remarks were broadcast from the Crown Court for the first time. The scheme is deliberately narrow:

• Only the judge is filmed. Defendants, victims, witnesses, jurors and court staff are not.
• The remarks must be delivered by a High Court judge or a senior circuit judge.
• Only broadcasters with written permission from the Lord Chancellor may film, and the judge must also agree in writing.
• Broadcasts must not breach any reporting restrictions in the case, and a short delay is used on live coverage to guard against mistakes.

Whole trials are not televised. Some appeal hearings in the Court of Appeal can be broadcast, and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom films its own hearings.

The United States: states and federal courts

The United States offers the widest contrast within one country. In 1981 the US Supreme Court ruled, in Chandler v Florida, that the Constitution does not forbid states from allowing cameras in criminal trials. Since then most states have admitted cameras to some degree, and all 50 state supreme courts allow them under certain conditions.

Individual states keep changing their approach. Indiana gave local judges discretion to admit news cameras from May 2023. Minnesota widened access in 2024, so defendants and lawyers no longer hold a veto over coverage of criminal proceedings and the decision rests largely with the judge.

Federal courts are much stricter. Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has prohibited photography and broadcasting of federal criminal proceedings since 1946. The US Supreme Court does not allow video. It began live audio streaming of oral arguments in 2020, a practice that has continued.

Congress is considering change. In June 2026 the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced two bipartisan bills. One would give federal judges discretion to allow cameras in criminal cases, and the other would require the Supreme Court to permit televised open sessions. Both have yet to become law. In October 2026 a federal judicial advisory committee also discussed a narrow exception that would let crime victims and their families follow criminal trials remotely.

Germany and Brazil: two ends of the spectrum

Germany sits close to the restrictive end. Section 169 of its Courts Constitution Act generally bars audio and film recordings of hearings for public presentation. Reforms passed in 2017 created limited exceptions:

• Courts may relay audio to a separate media room at the courthouse.
• Judgments of the highest federal courts may be broadcast.
• Recordings of proceedings of historical importance may be made for archive purposes.

These decisions rest with the judge and cannot be appealed.

Brazil is at the other extreme. Its Supreme Federal Court has broadcast its sessions live since 2002 through TV Justiça, a channel run by the judiciary, and later added an official online channel. The court is a constitutional court, so this is not a model for ordinary criminal trials with witnesses and juries.

Witnesses and reporting restrictions

Permission to film does not override reporting restrictions. A judge may still order that a witness is not shown, that a name is withheld, or that part of a hearing is closed to the public. Victims of sexual offences and children are usually protected by law, whatever the camera rules say. Broadcasters must also take care that footage cannot identify someone the court has said must not be identified.

For witnesses, the central concern is whether the prospect of a camera makes it harder to give honest evidence. That is why many jurisdictions, including England and Wales, keep witnesses out of shot even where other filming is allowed.

What to expect next

The trend in many places is towards more access, but it is cautious and carried out in stages. Courts usually begin with judges' remarks, appeals or audio, and extend coverage only if those steps cause no harm to fairness. Whether broadcast trials become routine will depend on how courts balance open justice against the privacy and safety of the people who appear before them.