header-logo header-logo

Keep courts infection-free

10 March 2021
Issue: 7924 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Health & safety , Profession
printer mail-detail
Concerns around COVID-19 safety measures as Isleworth falls short

Lawyers have expressed fears about safety in court after Isleworth Crown Court failed a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) COVID-19 inspection on cleaning and social distancing measures.

The inspector visited the court on 29 January and identified contraventions relating to ‘cleaning regimes, social distancing and the monitoring of occupancy levels within the building’, an HSE spokesperson said. HM Courts and Tribunals (HMCTS) have been issued with a notification of contravention and asked to respond to the inspector by 12 April.

Solicitors have raised concerns with the Law Society about potential risks at courts throughout the pandemic. These have included concerns about the enforcement of face masks in public and communal areas, the frequency of cleaning, and having to take instructions in confined and unventilated rooms where social distancing is impossible to maintain. Solicitors have complained of being required to attend court in-person for matters they believed could reasonably be dealt with via remote means.

Law Society president David Greene said: ‘Even though we may be seeing a planned exit from the pandemic it remains absolutely essential that all court users can be assured of the safety of the court environment.

‘If that cannot be assured, as appears to be the case at Isleworth, HMCTS must take immediate action―including possibly closing a court―until it can be.’ 

Safety measures such as plexiglass screens, social distancing marks and frequent cleaning have been implemented to keep court users safe.

However, fears about unsafe courts emerged in January, when the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) revealed figures showing 434 court staff, 69 judges and magistrates, 23 jurors and 73 other court users tested positive for COVID-19 between 24 November 2020 and 11 January 2021. Cases were confirmed at 196 courts within the same period.

The MoJ pointed out that this rate tracked the national average and it should not be assumed that infection took place at court.

Issue: 7924 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Health & safety , 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