Solicitors have predicted ‘chaos’ after provisions forcing defendants in custody in the virtual court pilot areas to use the videolink for court appearances were brought in yesterday.
A pilot of the scheme, which enables defendants to make their first court appearance via videolink from the police station, began in London in June, and in Kent in August.
Up until Monday defendants had the right to consent or refuse to participate in a hearing over the live link, but that requirement has been removed. All defendants in custody to appear at the participating courts will be compelled to appear via videolink unless the court believes it would be contrary to the interests of justice.
The initial decision on whether a case is suitable to proceed by way of a virtual hearing will be made by the police.
Since the pilot began, voluntary take up has been much lower than the Ministry of Justice predicted. As at 30 October, it had dealt with 263 defendants.
The Law Society has warned that the change has been introduced before an evaluation of whether the technology is robust enough to process larger numbers of cases and avoid delays, and whether the quality of the justice has been affected.
The MoJ claims the process will save money and reduce delay, but it has been widely criticised by defence solicitors who say it is not in defendants’ best interests and presents problems with confidentiality and solicitor safety.
Law Society President Robert Heslett said: ‘The removal of the defendant’s consent means this process will change before we know how effective this type of hearing is. There is an evaluation currently under way, and it would be preferable to await the outcome of that evaluation before major changes are made.’
Greg Stewart, defence representative on the London implementation committee, said: ‘We predict chaos for this week and weeks to come.
‘There are still lots of problems with the technology, and the process does not suit the hurly burly of a magistrates court because it is too static and creates delays.’
Robin Murray, a member of the Kent implementation committee, said: ‘The system won’t be able to cope with increased volumes. It’ll become increasingly unpopular with courts because of the problems it creates.
‘But it’ll stagger on in the face of all the evidence suggesting it’s not succeeding, until there’s a change of policy or government,’ he said.
Ian Kelcey, chairman of the Law Society’s criminal law committee, said the system had struggled to cope with the low volumes so far.
‘I’d ask those who promulgate this system to reflect on what savings they think they’re making, and ask themselves if they were being diagnosed with a serious illness by a doctor, would they want to do it over videolink?’
An MoJ spokeswoman said: ‘The potential increase in case volumes as a result of the removal of consent was taken into account when the virtual court pilot scheme was originally planned and, therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse impact on court capacity.
‘Where a case is deemed suitable by the police and a live link hearing is scheduled, the court retains its discretion throughout to terminate the hearing if it considers that it is contrary to the interests of justice for the defendant to appear via live link.’
No comments yet