The court transcript is a document or audio file that reflects what transpires in a court. One version is the written transcript that is made by court officials. It is made at the request of a lawyer of private person. The audio transcript is supposed to be an accurate rendition of what is said in a court and both are used as strict evidence that proves that this or that went on in court. Neither of them actually prove that of course. There was a transcript I had made back in 2012 by the CTTT (Consumer, Tenancy and Trader Tribunal) so that I could prove that the estate agents had flooded the hearing with innuendo and falsehoods by shouting to the presiding member who’s judgement changed to reflect them. The member made comments regarding my use of the internet and his power to make orders relating to that which were patently untrue and should have had people up in arms. The audio transcript at the time was all I could afford so I got it. It was almost blank with all of the useful comment gone. In a ten minute hearing the microphones were supposed to have heard only seconds of breathing and a few unrelated comments. That audio was so chopped up it was nonsensical. Because they had such contempt for me they created and delivered an absolutely impossible fake transcript.
There was a hearing in the case I am fighting now and during that hearing as I tried to survive being abandoned by Legal Aid and left to fend on my own I asked what questions I could think of. I wrote down the answers because I have such a bad memory and I expected some legal person to turn up and ask where we were up to before taking control of my defence. In order to fight the appeal we needed to have a transcript of that trial. A written transcript took months to make and I suspect that is because they had to re-record the audio to reflect the new written document. The written transcript does not match my notes. It is close but no banana. When I mentioned it to Phil Butterfield he said two things. There is only the transcript and if I have doubts I should get a copy of the audio. I have a copy of both audio files from the CTTT. There is one they tried to tell me was the real but wasn’t and what is probably just as bad is a second one they sent when they realised so many witnesses had heard the hearing. I have not bothered to check it yet but with what I know about audio tricks I could make a phoney tape with all the bad stuff edited out and no one would know without a major forensic review. I could do that on my home laptop with shareware. That people’s futures are dependant on this thin and weary technology in the twenty-first century is unbelievable but has much to do with the fact that there are still corrupt little things being done in courts that their perpetrators need to be able to get away with to maintain their empires
Every trial should be filmed from several angles and the film put on disks and a copy given to all of the proponents within minutes of the case being run.
One of the little political tricks the corrupt members of courts and their political allies use is bring forth the idea that to record the trials means they will soon be broadcast. So far this threat has had the desired outcome. None of the people who’s m0st vulnerable and helpless moments ended up being a part of a court trial will want to risk being on the afternoon news or beside Big Brother on the television dial. They are placed in a position of supporting the people who are ruining their lives. They become co-conspirators of the corrupt court officials in their attempts to keep their activities in the shadows of low technology. The certainty of court trials being publicly broadcast if they are recorded on visual digital media is no more likely than the probability that all the cases recorded on audio will be released to radio broadcasters. The laws that prevent such a release can be easily extended to cover visual technology. If the provision of such digital documents to the people in the hearing is too much it can be treated the same way as the present transcripts.
It is a lot more difficult to fake a video document than it is a sound document. People caught removing parts of that kind of transcripts cannot simply claim a failure of technology as the CTTT did when they sent me a near blank transcript. The charges for falsifying video evidence or for losing parts of a transcript are going to be more harsh because the crime shows intention. It might even be enough to get those criminals who may now be hiding within the system kicked out and dealt with. Is there regular abuse of the court system by court officers, lawyers and Police? We could stop a lot of harm and end the doubt with a little legislation and a few cameras