Remote hearings 'could disadvantage more vulnerable people', lawyers and charities warn

Court hearings held remotely during lockdown have disadvantaged vulnerable people and should not be used longer term, lawyers and charities say.

They said people faced "paying to access justice" with internet costs for remote hearings and lost opportunities for help and legal representation.

Family law practitioners said video and phone calls were not suitable for some sensitive cases.

HM Courts and Tribunals Service said it would consider court users' feedback.

In the Covid-19 pandemic, so-called "priority courts" have remained open for serious and urgent cases that could not be conducted over video link or phone but other hearings, such as cases over guardianship of children have been carried out remotely.

Between 23 March and 6 April, audio hearings across all courts and tribunals in England and Wales increased by over 500%, and video hearings by 340%.

Custody cases over guardianship of children are among those being decided remotely while emergency measures are in place.

A speed consultation by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory found procedural cases were working well but detailed concerns with disputed and sensitive cases.

Particular concern was voiced as to the ethical issues involved, where orders to remove children had to be made over the phone or where urgent hearings were delayed.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has warned that there is a heightened risk that disabled people may not be able to realise their right to a fair trial.

Analysis by the BBC Shared Data Unit has found that 40% of Magistrates’ Court closures - due to previous reforms and not due to the coronavirus outbreak  - have more than doubled the distance people have to travel to the next nearest court, not accounting for transport options.

For local residents, this has more than quadrupled the distance travelled to the nearest court since Rochdale Magistrates’ Court closed in 2010. Before the local court closed, people travelled an average of 2.19 miles to the court and now the average distance has increased to 10.63 miles to the nearest Magistrates' Court in Manchester.

Before the pandemic hit, family law group Resolution said its members reported "substantial" problems of vulnerable people accessing courts and having to travel increasingly-long distances to them.

It said it was "deeply concerned" about the prospect of any further cuts to face-to-face court provision to save money based on the idea that video hearings had worked during lockdown.

Mary Marvel, from legal information website Advicenow, said she was concerned about an ongoing ‘push towards online courts’: “First of all, there’s just basic access to the internet, which affects quite a lot of people in the population who can only access the internet through their phone.

“I think, unfortunately, for the most vulnerable people in our society [remote court] poses another huge barrier and when you’re thinking about cases in magistrates court, that might affect your liberty.

“For some people it will be better, but for some people it will be immeasurably worse.

“There’s not fair access to justice already.”

An HM Courts and Tribunals Service spokesperson said: “We continue to work closely with the judiciary to use technology and keep the justice system running during this pandemic.

“Judges will consider the best way for a hearing to take place, taking into account the needs of those participating.”