>but it's understandable why the UK might choose not to treat them as a privileged observer.

Sounds more like a justifiable way of minimizing the legal support available to the defendant, and control the flow of information to the public.

They're a charity and a private institution, not a legal arm of the UK, an oversight organization of the EU, or a division of the UN. They have as much legal authority as any other private institution.

Not to say that it wouldn't be a good idea for AI to have the privilege of oversight of any court proceeding in the UK. But I believe such a thing would have to start as law from the Houses, not the discretion of an individual judge. If there is precedent to the contrary, I will stand corrected.

According to Amnesty, "Amnesty International monitors have gone to Guantanamo Bay, Bahrain, Ecuador, Turkey, and Hungary, among many others, to observe trials as officially recognized fair trial monitors." - https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306200278207782913

I guess it's too much to ask of the UK though.

> They're a charity and a private institution, not a legal arm of the UK

Just like the Internet Watch Foundation. Being a private charity does not mean much for the UK.

The fact that the courts cannot accommodate an organization like amnesty international should be be concerning.

It's appropriate for the court to take steps necessary to ensure not just a fair trial, but the apparence of a fair trial.

If you fail to ensure the apparence of a fair trial, you undermine the court.

It saddens me that the court can't ensure a trial that is beyond criticism, especially in a case this controversial. It gives serious credibility to people claiming this is a sham trial. Because a fair trial should go out of it's way to also appear fair.

Um, I believe AI is seeking physical access to the trial because they have sought - and were specifically denied - remote access to it.

If you want to write some justifications for why the government is refusing to let the public watch a video of the proceedings, then knock yourself out.

It appears they have exactly the same access as the rest of the public, from their own tweet.

https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306197900289019904/p...

They let in around five members of the public. So yes they have the same access, which is no access.

"Be sure to get up early and be there on-time" is hardly no access.

It's AI that's requesting special treatment. I think it'd be cool if the UK passed a law making it so, but it seems less cool if a trial judge decides unilaterally to go outside of the norms and allow it. Isn't AI's goal to make sure norms are followed?

Yeah, I don't think "waking up early" is going to help if they only let in five people.

Did you read her Twitter thread you keep posting? The reason she is requesting "special treatment" is so that the spots allocated to the public wouldn't be used. They are trying to use their authority to push for more people allowed to attend.

>Isn't AI's goal to make sure norms are followed?

No, the goal is to try and ensure that a tryly public trial is held.

That would be a nice narrative if it was really possible to access the courtroom. Only 5 persons of the public are allowed in, meaning there is no access.

Five people allowed access is more than zero people allowed access. "No access" would mean zero.

The fact that AI was denied access seems like support for them being there. If the court behaved in a way that would be consistent with them allowing AI, then AI would not need to observe.