Remote access to the courts should be a great opportunity for open justice. But does the option of attending hearings remotely really increase openness or just create the illusion of it?

In theory, being able to access court hearings remotely by logging onto Microsoft Teams, CVP, BT Talk, or whatever the choice of software is, sounds like a brilliant idea.

After research from the Law Society about crumbling court buildings, this concept – which grew in Day of the Triffids style during the pandemic – feels like a solution to more than one issue. Open justice for anyone and everyone who wants to see it with just a quick click of a link. Nobody need put themselves out of pocket with trains and buses or parking, nobody need worry about travel times or having to carry heavy bundles around busy streets and court buildings.

However, the reality feels different. Remote hearings, and being able to access them, requires more planning on the part of the courts and the individual who wants access. 

A link to a remote hearing isn’t widely and easily accessible in the same way an open court is, where all you have to do is walk through the doors and put your bag through the scanner. In effect, the ability to turn up and see is lost.

Sometimes, I’ll sit in on hearings just to see what they’re about. I’ve attended many remote hearings without issue. A small but significant proportion I have not been able to attend because I haven’t been sent the link in time, instead receiving an apology email after the hearing is finished, or even an apology email minutes before saying the link cannot be found, more often than not there’s no acknowledgment at all. Sometimes tech issues meant I couldn’t hear any sound or couldn’t connect to the hearing at all.

A stable internet connection is a necessity. Though I may be lucky enough to have one, what about those who do not? I know members of the public walking into court and sitting in on cases isn’t the regular thing, though admittedly I haven’t looked at stats to confirm my assumption, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be just as easy for anyone to join remotely. 

Worryingly, we don't know what effect the move to remote hearings is having on public attendence. The government's response to the House of Commons Justice Committee’s report Court Reporting in the Digital Age says it is ‘impractical’ to collect and publish data on remote hearings.

This, to me, is where remote access fails. Open justice feels a little less open even if, in theory, it is more accessible. 

Non-attendance for press or members of the public may not sound like a big issue. If proceedings carry on, what does it matter? But open justice is the cornerstone from which the UK justice system is built on. There is a thin line but a difference nonetheless between access and openness and I know it may be tricky, more work, but we should be able to have both. Some remote hearings will have at least the judge in court: if someone could not attend remotely, why can they not go to the court instead? Why, if a trial is being heard in person, can a link not be provided to those who cannot attend but they wish to?

I understand that will be extra admin and work for an already overworked and overstretched staff but it would be a more confident step towards open justice.

I know it’ll take some time before the system becomes second nature. When you’re relying on technology, there’ll be times it will fail, but it is a concern that some cases are effectively heard in private because even asking for a link does not mean you will get one. It’s a small crack in a large infrastructure but it is one that needs to be looked at and corrected as soon as possible.

 

Topics