*/
Video justice threatens defendants’ rights and undermines trust in the justice system, according to a report from a national charity that urged the government to delay further expansion until research has assessed its impact.
The research from Transform Justice found that appearing via videolink disadvantaged defendants, particularly those with disabilities or learning difficulties and those who do not speak English as a first language.
The report, Defendants on video – conveyor belt justice or a revolution in access? found that 58% of respondents thought appearing on video made it more difficult for defendants to understand what was going on or participate in hearings.
Seventy per cent said it was difficult to recognise whether someone on video had a disability and 74% said that those without legal representation were disadvantaged by appearing on video.
Transform Justice called for a halt to the expansion of videolink hearings until research has assessed its impact on juries, judges and defendants.
Its director, Penelope Gibbs, said: ‘Our report sounds a warning bell. If video justice disadvantages disabled people and risks undermining trust in the justice system, is it worth forging ahead with trial by Skype?’
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: ‘We know video hearings reduce court time, improve public safety and save money for the tax-payer. Videolink technology is used to make the court process easier for vulnerable victims and witnesses.’
Video justice threatens defendants’ rights and undermines trust in the justice system, according to a report from a national charity that urged the government to delay further expansion until research has assessed its impact.
The research from Transform Justice found that appearing via videolink disadvantaged defendants, particularly those with disabilities or learning difficulties and those who do not speak English as a first language.
The report, Defendants on video – conveyor belt justice or a revolution in access? found that 58% of respondents thought appearing on video made it more difficult for defendants to understand what was going on or participate in hearings.
Seventy per cent said it was difficult to recognise whether someone on video had a disability and 74% said that those without legal representation were disadvantaged by appearing on video.
Transform Justice called for a halt to the expansion of videolink hearings until research has assessed its impact on juries, judges and defendants.
Its director, Penelope Gibbs, said: ‘Our report sounds a warning bell. If video justice disadvantages disabled people and risks undermining trust in the justice system, is it worth forging ahead with trial by Skype?’
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: ‘We know video hearings reduce court time, improve public safety and save money for the tax-payer. Videolink technology is used to make the court process easier for vulnerable victims and witnesses.’
The Chair of the Bar reports back
Susie Griffin on the admin that keeps barristers from billable work
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, discusses what family law professionals need to know about hallucinogens, from the main hallucinogenic drugs encountered in family proceedings, to their effects and the testing options available
Harmony Christian Ministries is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
By David Green
The golden age of advocacy? David Langwallner pays homage to the filmic if contentious barrister Sir Edward Carson and some of his contemporaries
Leah Arthur, a pupil, and her second seat supervisor, John Goss, share their perspectives on building a productive pupil-supervisor relationship
Henry Fingerhut outlines what the Bar Standards Board AI guidance means for early career barristers
The Ministry of Justice will match-fund up to 100 criminal pupillages, with grants available to criminal chambers across England and Wales. Similar to the COIC scheme, the grants will match-fund pupillages additional to those otherwise offered without government funding
Not yet, says Jacob Turner. Regulation, unlike the technology itself, is a domain the legal profession can still control
