News

People actually watch the UK Supreme Court TV channel

By on
16

Neuberger, Hale, Sumption and the rest of the gang pull in the views

sumption-lead

The Supreme Court has become an unexpected online sensation — its new video archive has attracted an impressive 10,000 views a month since its debut.

An online audience of thousands has accessed the ‘Video on Demand’ service, which gives viewers the chance to watch decided and current cases via the court’s website. Keen viewers have more than 900 hours of archived footage to choose from.

Clocking up an average of 10,000 views a month over the service’s first six months, only two cases managed to surpass 3,000. The criminal law case of R v Jogee, featuring appearances from the likes of big shot barristers Felicity Gerry QC and Adam Wagner, proved particularly popular, and has been viewed 3,592 times.

But the favourite of all was the compelling case of Barry Beavis, a fish and chip shop owner from Essex who took on a parking company in a contract law dispute about an £85 parking fine. The hearing racked up an unprecedented 3,853 views.

The average time spent watching a video on demand is over 4.5 minutes. Many users flick onto the video very briefly, which suggests that some others are viewing for long periods of time.

The Supreme Court’s live streaming service has also proved popular, with viewers across the world accessing the facility almost 20,000 times a month.

Lapping up his online celeb status, Lord Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court, said that he is very encouraged by these numbers, commenting:

These figures demonstrate considerable appetite among the British public for seeing their top court at work, and that can only be a positive sign. Justice being done openly, so that it can be watched by anyone who wants to see judges at work, is vitally important for public confidence in the judiciary, and it is excellent that today’s technology allows us to enable this at a reasonable cost.

16 Comments

Anonymous

I enjoy watching it so I can see Sumption’s weird ticks. I also try to spot the really junior counsel who have been roped in so they have something to put on their CV. They are often to be found drifting in-and-out of consciousness.

(13)(0)

Anonymous

Haha. I focus on Lord Sumption too

(0)(0)

J

During one recording, I spotted a really junior counsel playing with his phone in full view of the Supreme Court Judges.

(1)(0)

Kuzka's Mother

“Justice being done openly”… for those who can afford it.

(4)(4)

Anonymous

“The average time spent watching a video on demand is over 4.5 minutes. Many users flick onto the video very briefly, which suggests that some others are viewing for long periods of time. ”

What does this paragraph even mean..? Care to cite sources, or draw a conclusion?

(5)(5)

K

It’s pointing out that given that the average viewing time of videos on the site per visit is 4.5 minutes, the fact that a sizable portion are just clicking on the videos and then exiting before really watching means that a sizable amount of people must necessarily be watching the videos for extended periods, in order to raise the average watch time to 4.5 minutes.

(6)(0)

Bill

“Where’s your authority for this?” Fond memories of my 2.2

(5)(0)

Anonymous

“The average time spent watching a video on demand is over 4.5 minutes. Many users flick onto the video very briefly, which suggests that some others are viewing for long periods of time. ”

What does this paragraph even mean..? Would you care to cite sources, or draw a conclusion?

(0)(4)

Ron

It’s quite simple, most viewers simply watch the proceedings for approximately 4.5 mins before turning back to pornhub to continue wanking themselves into a coma.

Which reminds me……

😤😤😤. 😄😅 😴

(3)(2)

Anonymous

Once I was watching and I don’t think Lord Neuberger knew the camera was on and he was singing a little tune to himself, I think Tove Lo’s ‘Stay High’.

(18)(0)

Anonymous

The best bits on SC TV are when the judges get confused about page references, and they all spend about 5 minutes going:

Judge A: “Have I seen that paragraph of your key authority somewhere? I think it’s in paragraph 123 of your Printed Case”
Counsel: “No, it’s actually behind Tab 27 of Core Bundle B, at page 24…”
Judge B: “I think I saw it mentioned on page 13 of the Index to the authorities”
Counsel: “Well, there is an extract of the relevant paragraph at page 29 of my learned friend’s skeleton argument”
Judge C: “But what is the reference in the electronic bundle?” (which no-one else is using but has been provided at vast expense)
Counsel: “If you press the button headed “Appellant’s Case”, and then scroll down, click Tab 83 on the left hand side and then the little magnifying glass, that will help you search”
Judge D: “Oh forget it. I can remember the paragraph anyway because I wrote it”.

(37)(0)

Anonymous

If you’re into this sort of thing, you’ll enjoy Parliament TV. Often just shows lots of people milling about or talking about badgers, pot holes, cheese etc.

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Commons

(6)(0)

Saul.

It is nice seeing James Eadie in action!

Is it possible to view the skeleton arguments of parties appearing before the Supreme Court?

(1)(0)

Anonymous

It isn’t possible, but strictly speaking they are public documents I think, so you can always just turn up at the hearing and ask counsel for a copy.

(0)(1)

Anonymous

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Written by someone clueless. You can apply for copies of documents but they aren’t statements of case so will not be disclosable.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

I like Lord Neuberger’s “top court”. So much better than ‘highest’ or ‘most senior’. And so Legal Cheek.

Rope him in to do a few pieces on here – maybe, the state of the toilets at Wood Green Crown Court, Oxbridge dominance, NQ pay or Judge Rinder.

(5)(0)

Comments are closed.