Justice secretary Jack Straw praised the virtual court process yesterday after the first two cases to use the technology were heard this week at Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court in London. However, the Law Society marked the occasion by giving voice to its ‘grave concerns’ about the initiative.

During a visit to the court, Straw said the virtual court process would be faster and more efficient, and free up police time, making a ‘big difference to the quality of justice’. It would save defendants from being stuck in unhealthy, poorly ventilated custody wagons, he added.

The first defendant to consent to have his case dealt with via videolink from Charing Cross police station, instead of being taken to court, pleaded guilty to drunken driving.

The hearing took place four hours after the defendant was charged, and lasted for 20 minutes, at the end of which the defendant was disqualified from driving for 12 months and fined.

A spokesman for the Office for Criminal Justice Reform said: ‘It went very well, even though there was the added complexity of having an interpreter.’

In the second case, the defendant pleaded not guilty to failure to provide a specimen and the matter was adjourned.

On the issue of solicitor safety, Straw said there are ‘a lot of quite large custody and police officers around in the police station’ and it was unlikely that a defendant would attack their own solicitor. But he said the situation would be monitored.

Vera Baird QC, solicitor general, who accompanied Straw, said the risk to defence representatives was minimal and ‘solicitors are shrewd people’ who would have spoken to their client and warned them of the likely outcome.

During the 12-month pilot, defendants will be dealt with using the virtual court only if they consent, but if the provisions in the Coroners and Justice Bill are enacted, that consent will not be required.

A second pilot will begin in mid-June in Kent, linking north Kent police station with Medway Magistrates’ Court, and by the summer it will be extended to include 14 other London police stations.

The costs of setting up and running the pilots are estimated to be £5m, but it is anticipated that the pilot, if successful, will save £2.2m, and once rolled out nationally the process will save £10m a year.

Richard Miller, Law Society legal aid manager, reiterated Chancery Lane’s ‘grave concerns’ about the initiative. He said: ‘There are major practical considerations about virtual courts that have not yet been satisfactorily addressed. There are real questions about whether the effect of the virtual court will be to worsen delay and to increase the number of ineffective hearings.

‘People may be kept in custody for longer than they otherwise would as a result of defendants and their solicitors not being able to gather the information necessary for a bail application in the time available.

‘The Law Society also has concerns about how defendants will get confidential advice in the time available, and how their lawyer will get access to the relevant paperwork. It is unclear how a legal aid application and its supporting documents will be completed in time for the second hearing if the client is remanded in custody and cannot get access to the documentation.

‘The Society has grave concerns over the safety of its members – under this scheme defendants will be sat in a small room right next to their solicitor – Jack Straw avoids the fact that in a conventional court, the client will be in a dock with dock officers. Consent should be retained and if there is to be any question of removing it, a decision should only be made as part of the evaluation of the pilot at the end.’