It found the experience of remote hearings was largely positive. However, the majority of respondents acknowledged there was a psychological impact, both positive and negative. Expert witnesses pointed out that aggressive cross-examination was not as effective remotely as it would be face-to-face.
Attending the hearings while in familiar surroundings such as their own home also had a relaxing effect, allowing the experts to give more considered answers to the benefit of the court. Conversely, they were ‘lulled into a false sense of security’ when undergoing cross-examination and some experts resorted to ‘imagining the physical environment’ of a traditional court in order to maintain focus.
Psychologists highlighted how subliminal processes can sway decision-making, such as associating the frustration of technical issues with those providing evidence. The report noted decisions were being reached considerably more quickly than in in-person hearings.
One legal psychologist argued the case for withdrawing video from the equation altogether―allowing decisions to be based purely on speech and lessening the potential impact of unconscious bias.
Stepan Puchkov, legal psychologist, said: ‘When we process other people’s speech and behaviour, we do not limit ourselves to conscious perception but also process everything that is going on at a subconscious level.
‘This includes body language, intonations, or the delay between a question and answer.’
BRG managing director Daniel Ryan said: ‘Given that remote and hybrid forums may remain a feature for courts and tribunals indefinitely, some of the less obvious—and subconscious—aspects of the ways we behave in these settings are very useful to consider.’
The report can be viewed here.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
