After the recent joys of the Boris Johnson interrogation, Donald Trump’s New York indictment could only be, for connoisseurs of extended demagogue-humbling, a two-star show.
Delightful as it was to watch Trump fail to make something dashing of his entrance, the judge’s refusal to indulge broadcasters meant the public were denied even the sound of his historic contribution: “Not guilty.” His team had objected, as is sometimes convincing from lawyers whose famous clients are less like clowns, that it would “create a circus-like atmosphere”. Broadcasting permission, as demonstrated in the irresistible US footage of Gwyneth Paltrow’s jumpers, can depend on the judge and the state, as well as the country. In the UK, David Pannick KC was an early if unavailing enthusiast. “It is difficult,” he wrote, “to even formulate an argument against the admission of the television camera and the radio microphone into British courts if the parties do not object and there are no witnesses giving evidence who may be influenced by the broadcasting of proceedings.” That was in 1984.
