Remote hearings must not impede open justice

Moving into the technological age and embracing all things digital is a big step for any sector. The court system has largely done well in adopting new ways of working. I start with the positive because when it works, it works well.

The Court of Appeal’s civil division is a good example and there have been countless cases held remotely in various divisions that have been problem-free.

However, when it doesn’t work it is nothing short of frustrating and a very easy way to chip away at open justice.

It couldn’t happen in ‘real life’. You would just walk in and sit down. When remote hearings rely on an individual or, to embrace the tech jargon: a host, to give you the keys to the door so you can gain entry, it’s difficult. You can’t walk through a door you can’t even see, let alone open it. No link, no access.

There doesn’t seem to be a solid system in place to help those who are having to make everything run smoothly for multiple people trying to access a hearing, and that’s not even including members of the public or press.

A link that anyone can click on, which is already accessible when the trial is listed, would be an easy way around the issue. The SDT does this well as do the aforementioned CoA. I know this would be a labour intensive exercise, but if remote hearings are to be common practice for certain types of hearings or cases or to help access justice, then more solid foundations need to be put in place.

The court system had to run before it could walk with technology and despite a few expected bumps, overall it’s done well. Now is not a time to rest on laurels.

For every remote hearing that I have accessed smoothly, with links sent on time, there’s another where my request lingers in someone’s inbox ignored or forgotten. Usually, there’s no acknowledgement to the original request or subsequent emails. On rare occasions, an apology is sent, long after the hearing is over, saying the request was missed. Or sometimes, I get the link and then languish in the ‘waiting room’ hoping someone will admit my attendance. It’s not good enough.

Remote hearings can be a positive thing. They can help with access and should be a benefit to open justice, but if even the smallest portion of them are inaccessible to anyone other than the parties involved then they become a corrosive alternative. 

It shouldn’t be a choice between accessibility and openess. It doesn’t have to be. Someone far smarter than I when it comes to technology and digital access must have solutions. The court has shown it can adapt to change when it has to, now it needs to commit to it.