header-logo header-logo

COVID-19: Keeping the show on the road

21 April 2020
Issue: 7883 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession , Family
printer mail-detail
Barristers, solicitors, court staff, judiciary, and all those others who support court users have been praised for working ‘around the clock to explore and deliver extraordinary changes at great pace’

Susan Acland-Hood, CEO of HM Courts and Tribunals (HMCTS), in a Bar Council blog, said she was proud of how the legal profession has united to keep the justice system running. Senior judges have made decisions to ensure the most urgent cases are prioritised while continuing less urgent work by other means, she noted, while HMCTS had increased the number of teleconferences it can run using BTMeetMe and videoconferences using Skype for Business.

Looking ahead, Acland-Hood said HMCTS is testing and expanding its use of a fully video hearings system, the ‘cloud video platform’ (CVP), which has been used in certain civil, family and tax tribunal hearings. She said about 85% of cases are using audio and video technology. She added that HMCTS is keen to hear feedback from ‘everyone involved’.

Judges have been instructed to conduct hearings remotely where possible, while the Ministry of Justice has consolidated courts and buildings into fewer buildings to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. Currently, 160 court buildings are open to the public for essential hearings and a further 116 courts are staffed but closed to the public with parties accessing proceedings remotely. The Crown Prosecution Service has instructed prosecutors to prioritise serious cases to manage the impact of the pandemic.

Meanwhile, family lawyers have warned that couples face delays of several months to process divorce petitions, and the situation is likely to get worse.

Divorce is categorised by HMCTS as ‘work that we will do our best to do’. According to Lisa Pepper, partner, Osbornes Law, the latest guidance from Bury St Edmunds Divorce Centre reveals it is processing petitions received seven weeks ago, decree nisi applications are taking 11 weeks and consent orders are taking 13 weeks.

Pepper said: ‘The divorce courts, which were already over stretched are facing a crisis because of the coronavirus pandemic. It is crucial that this problem is addressed to ensure that delays don’t get any worse.’

Issue: 7883 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession , Family
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