England's Criminal Justice Act of 1925 bans the recording of court proceedings. Concerns regarding photography in the courtroom more than 60 years ago, however, may no longer be valid. Television is currently the most single important source of news for the general public, and it could play an enhanced political role if courtroom proceedings were recorded by making public scrutiny of the law and its institutions more informed. While the effect of cameras on judges would likely be minimal, it is possible that jurors could be intimidated or distracted by them. A legitimate desire to avoid negative impact on jurors, however, cannot justify a ban on camera use in criminal or civil proceedings. While there is no doubt that some litigants would drop a case rather than see it on television, it is not plausible that litigants in general would abandon their rights wholesale if television coverage of courtroom proceedings was allowed. Where a court sits in public and there are no restrictions on newspaper reports, the danger that a filmed report will deter or prejudicially affect a witness seems small. Permitting cameras in court would add little, if any, to the burden of participants. Further, there is no reason why a video camera should be any more harmful than a video recorder in court, provided that noise and physical disruptions to courtroom proceedings are kept within acceptable limits. An appropriate code or regulation would be needed to define acceptable parameters of noise and physical disruption. 42 references.