header-logo header-logo

COVID-19: Is your court open, staffed or suspended?

14 April 2020
Issue: 7883 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-detail
The Law Society has produced an interactive map to help solicitors and members of the public find out which courts are operational during the COVID-19 pandemic

This follows Ministry of Justice action to consolidate courts and tribunals into fewer buildings to make best use of resources and help prevent the spread of the coronavirus. 

The interactive heat map will be updated as more data becomes available.

Simon Davis, President of the Law Society said: ‘This tool illustrates which courts and tribunals buildings continue to be operational.

‘Where appropriate steps are taken to ensure good hygiene, appropriate distancing, and compliance with all other relevant guidance to minimise risk, they should be safe to attend.’

There are 160 court buildings open to the public for essential face-to-face hearings. A further 116 staffed courts are open to justice system employees and judges but not to the public, with parties involved in hearings accessing proceedings remotely via video or telephone. 75 courts have been closed temporarily.

Davis said: ‘The question will inevitably arise to what extent we can, or even should, return wholesale to previous ways of working once this crisis subsides.

‘The reality is that such a profound shift will likely alter permanently how we uphold justice and the rule of law. Therefore we must monitor carefully which of the technological solutions are sustainable for the long-term, to ensure that increases in efficiencies do not inadvertently come at the expense of justice being not only done but seen to be done.

 ‘Courts must be able to re-open once this crisis abates. We must be wary to avoid any risk of significant and permanent damage to the public’s ability to access to justice.’

In addition to the heat map, practitioners can look at HM Courts and Tribunals tracker list for the latest information on which courts are open, staffed and suspended. Find it at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals-tracker-list-during-coronavirus-outbreak.

For contact details and information about courts and tribunals in your area, go to: https://www.gov.uk/find-court-tribunal.

For advice and guidance for court and tribunal users during the pandemic, visit: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-courts-and-tribunals-planning-and-preparation.

Issue: 7883 / 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