Court hearings by video and over phone should be short-term, say legal experts

Large numbers of hearings have been carried out remotely during the Covid-19 pandemic, with so-called “priority courts” remaining open for serious or urgent cases.

But lawyers and charities have raised major concerns about this, saying people face “paying to access justice” with internet costs for remote hearings and lost opportunities to get legal representation.

Family law practitioners also said video and phone calls were not suitable for some sensitive cases.

The issue has been raised by the BBC Shared Data Unit, which also looked at how the use of video and audio for court hearings has grown massively during the coronavirus pandemic.

Between March 23 and April 6, audio hearings across courts and tribunals in England and Wales increased by more than 500 per cent, with a 340 per cent rise in video hearings.

And data published by HM Courts and Tribunals Service showed that between April 1 and April 24 between 85 and 90 per cent of all cases in the courts were being heard either by video or audio.

At Wigan and Leigh Magistrates’ Court, the vast mjority of cases due to be heard have been adjourned, with benches only sitting for what official documents describe as “urgent court work”.

And this week one Wigan case under the Proceeds of Crime Act was held at Stockport Magistrates’ Court.

Some Wigan defendants in crown courts have been sentenced during the pandemic.

But some cases where people are standing trial face long adjournments. One Wigan defendant’s case is now not set to take place until next year.

Particular concerns have been raised about family cases being heard remotely, with orders to remove children being made over the phone.

HM Courts and Tribunal Service has said it would consider users’ feedback on the remote hearings.

But legal organisations are urging the government not to be tempted to save money by closing more magistrates’ courts nd hving more hearings done online based on a notion that video and audio had worked well under lockdown.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has also warned there is a heightened risk of disabled people not being able to realise their right to a fair trial.

Mary Marvel, from legal information website Advicenow, said: “For the most vulnerable people in our society [remote court] poses another huge barrier and when you’re thinking about cases in magistrates’ court, that might affect your liberty.

“There’s just basic access to the internet, which affects quite a lot of people who can only access the internet through their phone.

“For some people it will be better, but for some it will be immeasurably worse. There’s not fair access to justice already.”

Edward Cooke of family law practitioners’ group Resolution, said: “In family cases, which involve dispute resolution of complex, often emotionally-charged issues, court provision delivered by video or phone is never going to be an adequate substitute to face-to-face contact.

“It is vital that judges, social workers and other family justice professionals can see people to make finely-balnced decisions that fundmentally affect children and families.

“So much of communication is non-verbal and is lost where face-to-face communication does not take place.”

One family lawyer said the experience of remote hearings for families “must be very poor”, with legal professionals having to redial because signal suddenly drops out.

An HM Courts and Tribunals Service spokesperson said: “We continue to work closely with the judiciary to use technology and keep the justice system running during this pandemic.

"Judges will consider the best way for a hearing to take place, taking into account the needs of those participating.”