Tuesday, January 08, 2013

Bad Ideas That will Not See Out The Year (2)

Virtual Courts

This is the whizzy new scheme that allows someone detained in a police station to be sat in front of a video setup, and talk to a magistrate (or more likely a DJ) who is in a 'virtual court'. Thus a judicial decision can be made about bail and suchlike. The defence lawyer might be in the police station, or in the virtual courtroom, or, for all I know, anywhere with a video link.

In Favour:

Could be cheaper (But the jury is still out on that one as the pilots haven't been costed)

Could save police time (but see parenthesis above)

Against:

Communication between lawyer and client will be stilted and degraded by the video eqipment.

Judge or magistrate will not have the usual human clues to help assess and understand the defendant.

The quality and format of the video and sound equipment has been shown to affect the credibility of the defendant.

Upfront cost of the kit.



20 comments:

  1. Can you expand please on the "human clues" that will not come across a video link? I know a high court judge was struck by Jeffrey Archers fragrant wife but I had thought Bystander et al were above such things :)

    Are there also no worthwhile savings to be had from fewer escapes from courts and transport to/from courts? And from fewer attacks on court staff (not to mention magistrates)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a good question about 'human clues'. I know they are vital but it's hard to put down in words exactly what matters, other than the very important "is the defendant engaged in the process?".

      Evidence is ultimately all that matters in Courts. But in bail decisions particularly, you are fundamentally concerned with measuring risk as much as evidence. And it's hard to assess such more qualitative matters based on a poor quality video image some ten feet away.

      Delete
  2. It will probably be tested in a seaside town for a few months - at huge expense - and be consigned to the bin.

    As you say it's hard to judge someone that's just an image. A lot can be learned from the defendant's attitude and demeanor in person.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If the crim gets denied bail are they allowed to send an avatar to a secure chat room rather going personally to jail?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Bystander Team says that pilots have not yet been costed, yet I read in December that an MoJ study found that it cost £247 more than a live appearance to bring each virtual case to court. A Home Affairs Select Committee also found that costs would outweigh savings over a 10-year period, so where's the sense in virtual courts? Body language and demeanour of a live defendant or witness is a critical part of the justice process.

      Delete
    2. Please give a link to this study and to the Select Committee report.

      Delete
    3. It was in The Times, but I can't recall the date.

      Delete
  4. My court currently uses the virtual court system and while there are some advantages in saving of transport costs etc, in reality, the defendant (who is usually sitting in a bare room with just a police or prison officer for company)is totally disconnected with the process. They have a small screen on which they can see the bench and the lawyers but most of the time they merely stare into space.

    It is an unsatisfying experience for all the court users (including the defendant)and I for one will not be disappointed to see the back of it though unlike BS Team, I fear it is here to stay at least for some time to come.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Haven't the mags courts already operated video links to prisons (to avoid transporting remand prisoners) for a number of years? So it wouldn't be particularly odd to extend this to police stations?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, they have DJ for about 3 or 4 years in some areas (but not all), and the principle of it or rather the technicalities perhaps are now well established. But whether it is in reality actual progress as far as the criminal justice system is concerned...well...I remain to be convinced

      Delete
  6. If the legal representative and the accused are not int he same place, how can proper consultation occur (in private)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I would like to know the answer to this as well. At the very least the lawyer and the defendant should be co-located (some computer jargon for you there!) so they can confer during proceedings.

      Also, who controls the defendant's microphone? Can he intervene at any time, or does it just get switched on when the bench wants him to talk?

      Also, are the procedures different if the defendant is representing himself?

      I suppose the logical end result is that everyone joins in remotely. The def uses a suite in the prison/nick, the lawyers use the PC on their desks, the mags skype in from home and the usher gets a P45.

      Delete
    2. This would be my biggest question, too. I suspect there might well be questions about how secure any video conference between lawyer and client would be.

      Delete
  7. Justice, Justice, Justice- where have thou gone?

    popped out for a coffee, when I came back it was all done

    ReplyDelete
  8. RickB - its quite possible to have a secure link between the two which is not visible to the rest of the 'court'. Similarly legal advisor to JP could be performed remotely so they also need not be co-located.

    I have to say I'm disappointed in the lack of technology used to speed up our courts. Whilst sometimes a night in the cells does a power of good to help focus the mind, there is no doubt that many not guilty accused with spend time in custody because of the "system" should you be 'unlucky enough' to be detained for an offence at Friday lunchtime you could be in all weekend. Logic would suggest a video link could help mitigate this.

    I've recently seen cases where prisoners were transported (at public expense) 400 miles to court, arrived too late and then held for another night in the cells. All to disqualify them from driving for 6 months. I'm not sure how they got back "home" but we probably paid for that too. Whilst that was the accused fault for failing to appear, it does seem questionable that we would require someone to travel e.g. from Edinburgh to Portsmouth to take their license off them!

    I've similarly seen witnesses asked to travel hundreds of miles to sit in a room for 4 hours and then give evidence for 3 minutes.

    However before worrying about video links I think there are huge efficiencies to be made by simply having a central management system for cases so defence agents and prosecutors can sign in, confirm if the case is ready to proceed, agree pleas, highlight disclosure or legal aid issues etc - and thus avoid intermediate cases and help ensure that cases which call for trial are ready to proceed.

    ReplyDelete
  9. DefenceSolicitor9 January 2013 at 18:11

    Another possible issue - if you are the solicitor dealing with the client at the police station and the case then goes straight into virtual court, you get to be the one sitting next to your potentially already aggravated client in the police station virtual court room if he's refused bail.

    It doesn't happen often but occasionally I appreciate that there is a piece of plastic between me and the client in the dock, even if the reason for the client's dismay is nothing to do with me.

    ReplyDelete
  10. As I once heard a defence advocate say after his client had been jailed, kicked off in the dock and then hauled off : "it's nice to see it's your fault for a change sir and not mine".

    ReplyDelete
  11. Surely this isn't anything new? In the last week, the driver involved in the fatal police pursuit in South Bermondsey was remanded via video link to Camberwell, and the CT prisoners held in a 'south london' police station have their PACE extensions and bail decisions performed by video link, and this is fairly routine.

    I'd shudder to suggest that a trial ought be performed this way, but for a certain category of prisoner where bail is (on the face of it) unlikely to be granted, it does cut out a prisoner journey - what's the point in hauling them out of the nick to stick them in the court cells, and then 20 minutes in the dock, only to stick them back in the cells to wait transport to the prison?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Once all witness statements are videoed, it makes sense not to rely upon writing, which sometimes is beyond some statement takers. Demeanour is preserved, but review of the video may take longer than reading the statement. Interviews with the suspect, likewise. The intrusion of better quality presentation of evidence and evidence gathering will require that certain facilities be in place in the courts.

    ReplyDelete
  13. We're effectively already running this system in the immigration courts for bail, so I don't really see why you need a pilot (or, indeed, why there should be any great concern about using a system for people accused of a crime when it is already working against people who have been accused of no crime at all).

    ReplyDelete

Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.