History was made today when, for the first time in English legal history, the public saw a verdict delivered on live TV by a Crown Court judge.
Judge Sarah Munro QC sentenced Ben Oliver to life with a minimum sentence of 10 years and eight months for killing his grandfather David, 74, after the 25-year-old, himself a convicted pedophile, discovered his relative had been accused of sexually abusing girls.
Ben had an autism spectrum disorder which, combined with other mental factors and a history of sexual abuse, lessened his responsibility for the murder.
Court heard his mental health ‘deteriorated’ lockdown and he declared his wish to take his own life. Before he is released from prison, he must file an application with the parole officer, who can keep him in jail if they decide he still poses a threat.
Today’s sentencing in Court No. 2 – one of Old Bailey’s oldest courtrooms – was broadcast on news channels and online, including Sky Newsthe BBC, and ITN. There was a 10-second delay in the stream – which could potentially remove legally problematic content in the future.
The move to allow cameras in court follows a law change in 2020, but implementation was delayed by the pandemic. It follows a similar easing of rules in Scotland in 2015.
Only the judge is filmed during sentencing to protect the privacy of victims, witnesses and jurors. In the future, the media will be able to apply for the broadcasting of sentencing comments, with the final decision resting with the judge.
Convicted pedophile Ben Oliver (left) killed his grandfather, David Oliver, 74, (right) at his home in Mottingham, south London
‘You stabbed his mouth so he couldn’t cry and stabbed his eyes so he couldn’t look at you’: grim case first televised in England
On 19 January last year, 25-year-old Ben Oliver stabbed 74-year-old David Oliver with a knife and knife in a brutal attack on the pensioner’s home in Mottingham, south London.
David was immobile and bedridden after suffering a stroke in 2016. Ben was obsessed with his grandmother and believed that her husband had abused her in the past. He had his own room in his grandparents’ house, but he became enraged when he learned that historical allegations of sexual abuse had been made against David.
On the morning of the incident, the 25-year-old suddenly grabbed a kitchen knife, walked into his grandfather’s bedroom and stabbed him several times in the head. The killer, who has partial hearing and learning disabilities, immediately confessed to what he had done to his grandmother.
Ben said to her, “He can’t hurt you anymore.”
The killer had served a six-year prison sentence for raping a young girl and was released on parole in September 2019. He lived in a flat a few miles away from his grandparents. He confessed to manslaughter for diminished responsibility and was acquitted of murder by a jury in May.
The examining magistrate Sarah Munro QC said the killer was “absolutely tormented”. “You chose a knife from the kitchen and went to your grandfather’s room,” she said.
“You stuck in his mouth so he couldn’t cry and stuck in his eyes so he couldn’t look at you. There were 21 stab wounds to his face and seven to his torso. You then repeatedly slit his throat with great force. He died very quickly of blood loss.’
The judge said Ben was a “very damaged man” who would need psychiatric help for years.
“In my opinion, you do pose a risk to the public,” the judge added.
The judge handed down a life sentence with a minimum term of ten years and eight months, less the 553 days that he was in pre-trial detention.
Prosecutor Louis Mably previously told the court: “He was attacked and murdered while lying helpless in his bed.
“He had been stabbed and slashed repeatedly in the face with a knife, particularly in the area of his neck, which had been effectively slashed open. This was a brutal attack, clearly carried out with the intent to kill him.’
The killer’s attorney, Jenny Dempster, said, “He is a young man who has experienced significant and substantial trauma in his own early life.” He said Ben was subjected to “pretty appalling abuse” as a child.
Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Burnett of Maldon, praised the move as a ‘very positive’ step in promoting open justice.
“I think it’s an exciting development because it helps the public understand how and why criminals get the sentences they get in these high-profile cases.”
But the Lord Chief Justice stopped advocating for trials on television, saying: ‘My own but quite strong opinion is that what we see happening around the world illustrates why that can be quite damaging.
“The point with sentencing comments is that broadcasting them has no impact on the way witnesses and others involved in the trial – complainants, victims, etc. – are immediately affected.
“If you broadcast the process yourself, it is very difficult to prevent.”
Deputy Prime Minister Lord Chancellor and Justice Minister Dominic Raab said allowing cameras in courtrooms “will improve transparency and strengthen confidence in the justice system”.
“The public will now be able to see justice delivered, helping them better understand the complex decisions judges make,” he said.
John Ryley, head of Sky News, said ‘Filming judges’ sentencing comments in the Crown Court of England and Wales is a win for the viewer.
“It will bring greater transparency to our courts and is something broadcasters, including Sky News, have been fighting for for over a decade.”
Ben Oliver, of Bexleyheath, south London, was acquitted of murder after admitting to the manslaughter of 74-year-old David Oliver, in Mottingham, south London, on January 19 last year.
During his trial, he was told that he had repeatedly stabbed and cut the bedridden victim in the face and neck as he lay “helpless” in his bedroom.
Prosecutor Louis Mably QC had told jurors that the intent was to kill because Oliver was “very angry” when he learned of allegations against his grandfather of historically sexually abusing girls.
The suspect had used a kitchen knife in the brutal attack and then confessed what he had done to his grandmother, the court had heard.
Jurors were told that the defendant grew up in “turbid and difficult times,” and in 2016 he was convicted of sex crimes against a young girl when he was 15 years old.
He was released from juvenile detention in September 2019.
In the months before the murder, he became aware of allegations of sexual abuse against his grandfather, who also allegedly mistreated his wife and had affairs.
The suspect was also depressed and had suicidal thoughts.
He is said to have an autistic spectrum disorder that, when combined with other emotional and mental factors, reduced his responsibility for the murder.
The Old Bailey in London routinely hears some of the most complex cases, including murders and terrorism trials.
The amendment will allow High Court and Senior Circuit judges who sit in the Crown Courts to be filmed delivering their sentencing comments.
Only the judge will be in front of the camera to protect the privacy of victims, witnesses and jurors.
It is still illegal to film or take pictures in court in normal circumstances and any member of the public caught running the risk of being caught with contempt of court.
This also applies to anyone who participates in a hearing via video link.
Judge Sarah Munro QC today became the first English Crown Judge to have her sentencing remarks filmed live on TV
Oliver was arrested on property he shared with his grandparents
Your questions answered: Why are court cases televised, how does this benefit the justice system, and what cases will be televised in the future?
What is shown on television?
Only the judge is visible, there is no view of the suspect in the dock, lawyers or other court personnel.
How has the law changed to make this possible?
Under the Crown Court (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2020, High Court and Senior Circuit judges are allowed to be filmed while handing out sentences in criminal cases.
Why didn’t this happen in 2020 when the law was changed?
During the Covid crisis, courts had to deal with the effect on jury trials and the rapid rollout of video link access to court.
Does the change now mean that every member of the public can film in court?
No. It is still illegal to film or take pictures in court in normal circumstances and any member of the public caught running the risk of being caught with contempt of court.
This also applies to anyone who participates in a hearing via video link.
Why would a member of the public film court process pose a risk to justice?
There are many potential dangers. Vulnerable witnesses and victims may be deterred from giving evidence.
It could increase the suffering of suspects and the families of victims. Furthermore, there may be a danger of a reporting restriction being exceeded, especially in cases involving young people.
Who will broadcast the sentencing notes?
Sky News, BBC and ITN will broadcast the footage and make it available online.
How is it decided which high-profile cases will be dealt with next?
The group of broadcast media will be able to apply for film and broadcast convictions, with the judge deciding whether the request is granted.
Will there be cameras in other Crown Courts in England and Wales?
The first sentencing will take place at the Old Bailey, but the sentences will be broadcast from other high-profile Crown Courts.
Which judges can be filmed?
They will be either High Court or Senior Circuit Judges sitting on the Crown Court.
Will the judge still wear traditional toga and wig on television?
Yes. Judges and lawyers still wear wigs in court, even though there was a brief relaxation of the rules for video-linked hearings during the pandemic.
Some say wigs are old-fashioned and should be scrapped, but many consider them essential to maintain formality and respect for the court, while distinguishing lawyers from the general public.
How do the televised convictions benefit the general public?
People will experience the courtroom environment firsthand and see and hear judges explain the reasoning behind their sentences.
And how does this benefit the criminal justice system?
The jury system relies on regular members of the public, who may have had little or no experience of the justice system before being called up for jury service.
A better understanding of what goes on in the courtroom promotes trust.
