I understand that physical seats are limited and retransmission is free and in live in the other room, as far as I understood.
"American prosecutors claim he conspired with whistleblowers to obtain classified information"
Well...
1) Make sure that visibility into the trial is as open as possible.
2) Make sure that the trial is as obscured as possible from the public and institutions that exist to hold the government to account.
Which are they doing? It is PAINFULLY obvious what they are doing is 2.
They could have made this trial very open. They opted not to. The question of whether the public had more or less access than Amnesty is a red herring of the highest order.
This isn't about a simple murder or stealing. This is at its root about how journalism holds the most powerful governments in the world to account for premeditated murder. Governments that have significant control over HOW the trial plays out.
If this were a russian trial doing the same thing we wouldn't even QUESTION that it was corrupt.
I think you missed a negation somewhere in that sentence.
"Amnesty International had requested access to the court for a trial monitor to observe the hearings, but the court denied us a designated seat in court. Our monitor initially did get permission to access the technology to monitor remotely, but the morning the hearing started he received an email informing us that the Judge had revoked Amnesty International’s remote access."
"The judge wrote back expressing her "regret" at her decision and saying: “I fully recognise that justice should be administered in public". Despite her regret and her recognition that scrutiny is a vital component of open justice, the judge did not change her mind."
There's the lack of openness 'you can't view the trial' and there's outright obeyance to fascism 'a political interference was made that compromised my former decision and I choose not to make that clear'.
Of course the judge could have made a legal error in acceding to the initial request from Amnesty International, but as a judge they would (and should) surely have given the reason for their turn around.
Yes. They're recognized independent observers. The reason why they should have a seat in the actual room is the same reason why all democratic countries allow independent observers to follow their elections from close-by: to confirm the fairness and validity of the process.
Or, to put it differently: "if they're doing nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide from Amnesty International"
I understand that physical seats are limited and retransmission is free and in live in the other room
That feed is very unreliable, as attested by many viewers from that room. That leaves ample opportunity for "doctoring" the feed.
> “ Amnesty International had requested access to the court for a trial monitor to observe the hearings, but the court denied us a designated seat in court. Our monitor initially did get permission to access the technology to monitor remotely, but the morning the hearing started he received an email informing us that the Judge had revoked Amnesty International’s remote access.”
No, it wouldn't. Just because the U.K. gets it's knickers in a twist that the international community is hitting it with the same "Trust but Verify" stick as it does every other nation doesn't net them a free pass.
It seems to be the main issue, many persons wants to follow this trial since it has worldwide impact.
(it still makes it sad that no solutions were found though)
Sunlight is good.
There is a general principle of the court publishes a fair, accurate and contemporaneous record except where this would create a substantial risk of prejudice. Here are the details https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/reportin...
These UK reporting restrictions are also why the BBC (and other major UK-based media) are very careful about how they report on criminal proceedings.
Looks like the difference is that there's no jury to be prejudiced, because trials are decided by the judges only.
I wonder though if the extradition request is going to be decided by the jury at some point, in this case in particular.
It should be pretty obvious why.
There is no objective public record of English trials.
Unsurprisingly if you request transcripts of a case in which someone was accused of raping a child, the witness statement from the child and associated examination by counsel may not be available to satisfy your "idle curiosity" whereas they might be available to the defence lawyer for the accused who is appealing the sentence based on something said in that part of the trial.