If there's any possibility that a government itself might be the guilty party then the best way to alleviate those concerns is to:
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.
A seat in the actual room, not really. The thing that's kind of absurd is that they were banned from watching it remotely as well.
"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."
It looks like the judge gave no reason for her ruling, presumably there was a dictat rather than this just being a capricious decision?
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.
is there any reason why Amnesty International should have a seat in the actual room ?
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.”
Would anyone deem it acceptable if this were a country well known for running kangaroo courts?
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.
If I get it correctly, seats are scarce:
"If Amnesty International and other observers wanted to attend the hearing, they would have to queue for one of the four seats available in a public gallery"
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)
Seems like it would be pretty easy to place a laptop running Zoom/Meet/YouTube-live in the gallery so that the public could watch what is taking place in their name.
That would make it possible to record the stream. The UK legal system is very apprehensive of allowing any recording of what takes place in a courtroom that isn't filtered through a human observer's memory.
The audio is always recorded and transcribed at a Crown Court. The transcriptions are a permanent record. This is why for example if a witness nods to affirm something they'll be asked to actually say "Yes" out loud if that's what they meant.
You can fill out form EX107 to apply for the transcript of some particular trial or part of a trial heard. What if anything is available will depend on what your reason is for requesting the transcript and the nature of the case.
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.
In general the reporting restrictions in the UK are there because there has been a history of recordings leading to jury prejudice and therefore mistrials.
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...