When should sensitive evidence seized in connection with a crime be disclosed to the media? The issue is important for public understanding of the trial process: the more evidence the media can publish, the fuller picture the public has of what went on in court.

Last November Ken MacDonald, QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, announced a new Crown Prosecution Service protocol on what material should be disclosed and when. One year on, has it worked? Agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) and media representatives, the CPS protocol creates two categories of disclosure. Material such as police footage of the scenes of crime, weapons or drugs seized, clothing shown to the jury, transcripts of interviews or statements read out in court and CCTV footage of the defendant should normally be disclosed. More sensitive material — such as CCTV footage shown in court of the defendant and victim, or the victim alone and tapes of police interviews — can be released, but only after consultation with victims and witnesses. Understandably, not everything will be disclosed.

It is fair to say that the protocol has been a success and the CPS and Acpo deserve some credit for their innovative policy. Before, there was no clear system. Now there is some clarity and consistency and more material is being disclosed to the media than ever before.

In a case reported last week where three men were sentenced for gun-smuggling crimes, Greater Manchester Police released photographs of the guns seized and footage of where the replica guns were converted into live-firing weapons. In the Morecambe Bay cockling trial, the CPS provided material such as the tape recording of calls to the coastguard, video of the rescue and map of key locations of the bay.

So the public can now see for the first time actual evidence shown in open court — to see what they would have seen if they sat in the court. The reporting of court cases has improved. Actual footage of what happened is far more engaging than any verbal description. The policy also aids accurate reporting. Seeing transcripts of police audio recordings means reporters don’t have to rely on muffled recordings played in court. The transcript shows the wording on the tape, including when defence and prosecution dispute what was said on the tape.

The protocol shows that increased openness in the legal system works. Increased disclosure by the CPS has not led to any noticeable problems and yes, the media have acted responsibly. The sky has not fallen down. The protocol means that the CPS and police are daily telling the public “this is what we do” and, in my view, gives better public understanding of their work.

If the CPS and the police can adopt such an open approach, why shouldn’t other prosecuting authorities not adopt a similar strategy? Indeed, why shouldn’t this approach — respecting rather than fearing the media — be applied to a range of open justice issues such as access to court documents, the televising of courts or speaking to the media by judges and barristers? A modern and open approach to communication of legal issues works.

The author is head of compliance at ITN and a barrister and represented ITN in the media group that liaised with the CPS on the protocol