Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce said the Society was concerned remote hearings could have ‘a serious impact on access to justice, and may not be suitable for vulnerable people’.
Boyce said: ‘We oppose the use of remote juries and do not believe they have a place in the justice system.
‘How jurors interpret body language and facial expressions can be key in a trial and it is unclear what effect hearing a trial remotely would have.’
She highlighted the extra expense of installing new technology and systems at a time when funding was needed to tackle the cases backlog and legal aid gaps.
The Bill also came under fire from a parliamentary committee last week, in a highly critical report. Highlighting ‘the problems with so-called omnibus bills’, the Constitution Committee report noted the bill has 177 clauses and 20 schedules, creates 62 new law-making powers and amends 39 pieces of primary legislation. The Committee stated: ‘It should not be repeated.’
The Committee made a series of other recommendations, including that the government commit to a pilot of the use of remote juries, and safeguards to protect victims’ rights to privacy be brought into the Bill rather than be made via a non-binding code of practice. It called for an amendment to require a defendant’s consent before a court could issue a live link direction, and for individuals to be given a physical and mental health assessment to check they were able to participate effectively in remote proceedings.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=961ae4db_1)
95ca96e3d47f4eff8d147c4f0df17c77.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=3db5d86b_1)
