The audio is always recorded and transcribed at a Crown Court. The transcriptions are a permanent record. This is why for example if a witness nods to affirm something they'll be asked to actually say "Yes" out loud if that's what they meant.

Yes, but the transcriptions are not published. You have no right to see them.

There is no objective public record of English trials.

You can fill out form EX107 to apply for the transcript of some particular trial or part of a trial heard. What if anything is available will depend on what your reason is for requesting the transcript and the nature of the case.

Unsurprisingly if you request transcripts of a case in which someone was accused of raping a child, the witness statement from the child and associated examination by counsel may not be available to satisfy your "idle curiosity" whereas they might be available to the defence lawyer for the accused who is appealing the sentence based on something said in that part of the trial.

Why's that, anyway?

In general the reporting restrictions in the UK are there because there has been a history of recordings leading to jury prejudice and therefore mistrials.

There is a general principle of the court publishes a fair, accurate and contemporaneous record except where this would create a substantial risk of prejudice. Here are the details https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/reportin...

These UK reporting restrictions are also why the BBC (and other major UK-based media) are very careful about how they report on criminal proceedings.

Thank you. In my country, the people have right to make recordings in the court, unless specifically limited by the judge on case by case basis.

Looks like the difference is that there's no jury to be prejudiced, because trials are decided by the judges only.

I wonder though if the extradition request is going to be decided by the jury at some point, in this case in particular.