KentOnline’s crown court reporter Julia Roberts gives an insight into the realities of her rewarding but often demanding job - and the pressures faced by the justice system as a whole…

Court reporting is often said to be like Marmite – you either love it or hate it.

On the one hand, you have drama, tradition, power – the glory and gruesomeness of reality played out by people from all walks of life.

It can also be exceptionally busy. The backlog may be increasing but for those working in the justice system, there’s no let-up.

A judge who retired from Maidstone Crown Court last week spent his final 10 days presiding over a staggering 100 cases, including an all-day murder sentencing. No rest for the wicked, as they say!

Journalists who cover our courts on a permanent basis also have the task of trying to keep track of everything that is unfolding.

The magistrates’ courts are a relentless conveyor belt of crimes, with little chance for a reporter to write their copy before the next case is called on.

The crown courts are a little less hectic, but please don't think those judges hear one case per day and finish early on a Friday to hit the golf course.

With pressure mounting, especially in Kent, to get through hearings as fast and as effectively as possible, there are those judges tackling the problem by running two, even three trials simultaneously in their courtroom, often with breaks taken up by other listings such as plea, case management and sentencing hearings.

It's called ‘over-listing’ and it can, at times, leave many feeling over-worked and, as a court reporter for more than 30 years, I cannot recall the last time the county’s two crown courts hosted four murder cases at the same time as they did just these past few weeks – two of which were trials lasting a month – or that two High Court judges, those who preside over the most serious of cases, would be sitting in one of those court buildings at the same time.

Please don’t get me wrong, this is not a complaint. It’s good to be busy as a court reporter. But what is worth complaining about is the amount of valuable time quite often wasted.

This can be in the form of defendants not being produced by the prison van – described in one of those aforementioned trials by Mr Justice Kerr as “endemic” – or by cases not starting when they should, statements not being prepared, pre-sentence reports not available or even a case not proving to be as newsworthy as you had been led to believe.

Court reporters also don’t just pop along, like other media types, when a particular headline-grabbing case is playing out or a verdict is looming.

We keep track not only of the ongoing trials but also the daily published lists for each and every court in Kent, weighing up which should get our attention and when, while also keeping an ear to the ground for the next titillating case that may suddenly spring up.

In fact, you’ll tend to find it is those reporters who have been assigned to just one trial or sentencing hearing who find the courts tedious – the Marmite haters.

They’ll often be playing the waiting game – waiting on one case or waiting for one verdict – and no matter how many times I’m asked, no one ever quite knows when a jury will return one.

But now comes the complaint from this Marmite fan.

In one of those four-week murder trials, I lost count of how much of my time was spent/wasted trying to obtain material that had been shown to the jury and was requested for contemporaneous publication.

Endless requests were submitted to the CPS, only to be told – days later at times – that it (a) was too distressing for public consumption, (b) no consent had been given, (c) was too large a digital file to send over, (d) no CPS representative available to deal with the request, and even (d) that in their opinion it did not add anything to the story.

As the public’s eyes and ears in court, the media has a right to ask. There’s even a protocol for concerned parties to follow on the Government website, and deciding it’s ‘too big to beat the firewall’, or ‘doesn’t add to the story’ are not among the reasons for refusing.

At one stage, fed up with having to make repeated requests on an almost daily basis, only to be told no, I actually asked what material would be released to save us all time and aggro. I never did get an answer.

I did make some headway, however, when lawyers acting on behalf of another news organisation (one of those that just pop along for the odd day) complained to the judge.

No official ruling was required however as those in court – barristers and Kent Police officers – reacted swiftly and genially to reach an agreement over what could be released. Needless to say, it included a lot that had previously been refused.

A lot of time and a lot of hassle could have been saved if those in the CPS – based in a head office and remote from the court proceedings concerned – had adopted the same approach.

Maybe it’s the way forward – before a major trial starts, discuss with the media what material is wanted and what will be given.

Otherwise, as Marmite haters would say, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.