header-logo header-logo

MoJ will evaluate remote hearings

25 November 2020
Issue: 7912 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-detail
‘Substantial investment’ being made into criminal court infrastructure
A formal, independent evaluation will be commissioned into the use of video hearings in criminal cases during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has confirmed in its response to the Justice Select Committee.

The MoJ is also planning a fully video remand pilot, building on knowledge gained during the pandemic, but this would be ‘subject to engagement and agreement with the judiciary’. It said ‘substantial investment’ was being made into criminal court infrastructure to support video hearings, with 50% of all courtrooms given video hearing facilities, and a second tranche of roll-put planned to increase this to 75%.

However, ministers have no intention of revisiting provision where court buildings have been closed.

In its report on the impact of coronavirus on courts and tribunals, in July (bit.ly/363twyj) the Committee said the government had been wrong to close so much of the court estate in the ten years prior to the pandemic, and warned the crisis should not be used to bring in permanent changes without proper consultation.

Responding this week to the Justice Committee report, the MoJ said: ‘As HM Courts and Tribunal Service recover from the impact of the coronavirus pandemic their focus will be on improving the existing estate through the additional funding received earlier this year and by making a robust case for additional funding as part of the spending review process.

‘Beyond the recent consultation on Medway County and Family Court, they have no further active proposals for changes to the court and tribunal estate.’

In response to other questions from the Committee, the MoJ said it was investigating the costs of setting up a freephone service for members of the public.

Law Society president David Greene said: ‘Case backlogs are significant across both the civil and criminal justice systems.

‘To help clear the backlogs, we encourage the government to open additional Nightingale courts. Investing in legal aid for early advice and legal representation would help to nip problems in the bud, thus avoiding some cases going to court at all.’

While remote hearings have been successful, people needed to be physically present in some cases, particularly those involving vulnerable parties.

Issue: 7912 / 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