The Old Bailey

Websites:
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/oldbailey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Bailey

Today I visited the Central Criminal Court, better known as the Old Bailey. I've long known that the public can attend court hearings by sitting in the public gallery but I've never got around to trying it out, until today...

In the morning I surfed the web trying to read up on the visiting protocol. First of all I was surprised to discover that the Old Bailey is not where I thought it was. I've often passed some grand-looking courts near Aldwych which I assumed were the Old Bailey but it turns out these are the Royal Courts of Justice. The actual Old Bailey is near St Paul's cathedral and, seeing it on the map, I decided I'd never been there during all my time in London.

On all the websites it was emphasised that no cameras or mobile phones (or radios, food, drink etc etc) were allowed into the public galleries and, in addition, there were no facilities to store such items at the courts. That being the case I left my phone and camera at home and set off.

The building is split into two parts - the old part and the new part. The old part has been there since 1902 while the new part was finished in 1972. I arrived at the public gallery entrance to the old courts on Newgate Lane at around 11am. After ringing a bell and patiently waiting the door was opened and I was told that the old court only had sittings from 2pm onwards and that I should try the new court. I went around the corner and found the new court entrance on Warwick Passage.

Soon I was scanned by security and allowed to go in. In what I write now I've decided to keep light on the specific details since I'm probably not supposed to write about them.

I came up to one of the courts and an usher outside asked if I wanted to go in. I asked what case it was and she said "Murder". After agreeing to stay for at least 30 minutes I went in and tried to silently take a seat in the packed gallery.

This public gallery overlooked a modern court room, recognisable from TV dramas. There was the judge sitting high up at the front and a number of barristers lower down speaking to him. The jury of 12 was on the far side of the room and the witness box was on the near side, at the front next to the judge. At the back of the room was a separated area which I assume held the defendant.

Having joined the hearing mid-way through a session it took me a while to understand what was being talked about.

While I was there the main barrister was questioning an expert witness about blood stains that had been found on the walls and furniture at the crime scene. They proceeded through the evidence very carefully, referring to labelled photos, diagrams of the room and typed-up accounts that the expert had given. The barristers and judge all wore ornate grey wigs which I came to like more and more as the time wore on.

Of all the barristers I saw, this first one was the best. He carefully proceeded through the evidence, clarifying the expert's statement and helping explain things in simpler terms. His tone wasn't patronising and he genuinely helped to clarify some of the jargon that the expert was using.

The judge in this court was good too. Although he looked old and senile - he wore glasses and had to use a magnifying glass to read some of his papers. But appearances were deceptive and his brain was sharp - he picked up an error / inconsistency in the experts report. The report talked about the Southern wall but the expert in the witness box was talking about the Northern wall. The judge pointed this out and asked which was correct. The barrister said "Ah... Yes, you're right, My Lord..." to which the judge replied "I know I'm right! But which is it? Northern or Southern?". After that I had more respect for him, despite his poor eyesight.

Eventually, after about half an hour, the court broke for a 15 minute break and everybody had to leave. When the judge stood up everybody had to "be upstanding" - including the public gallery! During all the time that I'd been there they'd just about established that something covered in blood had come down through the air and hit solidly against a piece of furniture, damaging the furniture and sending splashes of blood down to the wall. I'm almost glad I didn't have to hear the other parts of the case because even this small part sounded pretty gory.

After I left I switched floors and entered another court. This was another murder case and I quickly got a seat and tried to figure out what was going on. When I joined they were replaying a videoed interview with a teenage witness. This lasted around 20 minutes and then they turned off the video and brought up an image of the witness on the screens. The judge asked him "Can you hear me? Can you see me?" to test out the video link and then the judge told the witness that they were going to take a 10 minute break but then he'd be asked for his evidence.

We all left the court and I and hung around for the 10 minutes before re-entering the gallery. What I'd heard in the videoed interview was very interesting - an account of a stabbing that the teenager had witnessed from his bedroom window.

The barrister that questioned the teenager now was pretty patronising but proceeded in the same careful way that the first one had. He asked at length about the view from the teenager's window down to the street - was there a tree in the way? was he looking through his blinds? was there a van in the way? etc. He referred to photos of the street and diagrams of the area and really probed every aspect thoroughly. It ended up with the barrister repeating something back from the witness's sworn statement and then saying "Is that right?" to which he'd reply "Yes". I thought that this repetition this was pretty unnecessary but I suppose he was trying to highlight certain pieces of evidence. In being made to relive the memories of the event, at one point the witness, understandably, became upset and the barrister had to change his approach to be less intense.

In the end the court broke for lunch and we were again led out of the gallery. By this point I was hungry so went outside for lunch. When I returned I went to the old courts. The old building was quite different to the new one and the courts contained lots of carvings and ornate woodwork. The public galleries here were a lot higher-up than in the new courts which meant you only got a good view by sticking your head out from the front row.

The first court I visited here was only in session for about 5 minutes. There was no jury and the two barristers were just having words with the judge about whether evidence on the defendant's mental condition could or could not be used. I wasn't even sure what the charge was - there were a lot fewer ushers here which meant it was much harder to find one and ask about the cases.

After that session finished I tried my fourth and final court. This had three defendants looking moodily around, sometimes looking menacingly up at me in the public gallery! A barrister was questioning an expert witness about mobile phone records. They were all turning through pages and pages of annotated maps showing various phone calls that were made and which mobile phone exchange dealt with the call. From this they were trying to establish where the phones were at various times. Again this court broke for a break after about 30 minutes of this technical evidence.

At this point I decided I'd had my fill for the day and headed home. When I started I felt that I'd be too bored to stay for 30 minutes but with each case I became so engrossed that I only left when the courts told everyone to clear out of the gallery.

Summary: Very interesting, worth a visit.