England: Magistrates voice fears that video link trials herald end of local justice

Magistrates in Kent have detailed their concerns over UK government proposals to close courts and make greater use of digital technology, The Guardian reports.

The comments come as part of a formal response from the east Kent bench to a consultation exercise entitled “Judicial Ways of Working”, which was launched in 2017 by senior judges.

The consultation sought views on the impact of a £1 billion modernisation programme being undertaken by HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) that recommends more remote video hearings, online pleas for minor offences and fewer physical courtrooms.

More than 250 courts have been closed in England and Wales since 2010 as a result of a supposed decline in crime and technological advances.

The east Kent bench response said: “Fully video hearings must not be used for contested hearings. Court hearings should be required when a defendant is given a community order, prison sentence or disqualified from driving.”

Penelope Gibbs, the director of Transform Justice, which monitors magistrates courts, said: “Grassroots magistrates are clearly very unhappy with the digital court reform programme, both the changes proposed and the way they have been consulted.

“Magistrates fear the programme heralds the end of local justice – that they will be travelling ever greater distances to court and expected to make judgments on offences which happened hundreds of miles away.

“These magistrates are totally opposed to hearing trials by Skype, with no one in the courtroom and all involved on separate screens in their office or home. They are rightly concerned that video hearings cannot replicate the ‘holistic effect’ of the courtroom. Our own research also suggested that, due to unconscious bias, video hearings may result in harsher sentences.”

A spokesman for the judiciary said: “The Judicial Ways of Working documents were provided to judicial office holders in courts and tribunals by each head of jurisdiction.

“Contributions were received from, or on behalf of, more than 10,000 judicial office holders. As the next part of the process, the heads of division in the courts and the chamber and tribunal presidents in the tribunals have been working to develop jurisdictional views, taking into account these responses and the views of the respective judicial engagement groups. The judiciary and HMCTS will together develop further details of the various reform projects.”