header-logo header-logo

Barristers want safety in court

26 May 2020
Issue: 7888 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-detail
COVID-19 cleanliness concerns
Nearly 85% of criminal barristers are concerned about the health risks to them or their households of returning to court under current circumstances, a Criminal Bar Association (CBA) survey, has found (see ‘The Impact of COVID-19’ (https://bit.ly/2yyPuLo).

However, 80% agreed the risk to them and their family could be reduced to an acceptable level if all the safety measures mentioned in the survey were implemented.

These measures, which were all supported by the vast majority of respondents, included deep cleaning of courts between trials, as well as the supply of disinfectant, hand sanitiser, paper towels and adequate washing facilities, and the supply of plastic or glass screens so they could safely confer with defendants and witnesses. More than 90% thought it either essential or desirable that HM Courts and Tribunals supply PPE (personal protective equipment) in line with any government guidance to counsel, defendants, witnesses and court staff.

The results of the survey, completed by 1,878 barristers, were published last week.

CBA chair Caroline Goodwin QC said: ‘My recollection of the court estate was of dirty courts, broken seats, waste bins left overflowing, unkempt poorly cleaned and frankly unloved neglected buildings.’ However, a clean-up operation has taken place. Goodwin said she has visited courts including Newcastle, Leeds, Old Bailey, Cardiff, Bristol, Warwick and Minshull street, and ‘from the custody suite arrangements for conference, to the marking out with gaffer tape, the buildings look and feel very different’.

Meanwhile, jury trials were listed to start in Reading, Warwick and Winchester Crown Courts this week. Jury trials have also been taking place at Manchester Minshull Street, Bristol, Cardiff and The Old Bailey.

Mr Justice Edis, chair of the Jury Trials Working Group, which is looking for safe ways for jury trials to proceed, said: ‘The feedback received from participants, including court staff, jurors, witnesses and legal professionals, has been positive.’

Issue: 7888 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll