Plans for online courts and ‘virtual justice’ will increase the number of unrepresented defendants, discriminate against the vulnerable and to make justice less open, a legal charity has said.
A briefing published today by Transform Justice has attacked the lack of consultation and ‘weak evidence base’ for proposals under the Prisons and Court Bill to move criminal justice online.
‘The criminal court proposals seem to have been introduced in haste, in many cases without research, evidence or informal or formal consultation with experts and stakeholders,’ writes the charity’s director Penelope Gibbs.
The Bill includes plans for a massive expansion of online and telephone justice. Ministers are proposing that almost any party to any hearing will be allowed to take part by telephone or video link including remand hearings, pre-trial and enforcement issues, disputes over bail, witness evidence and summary only trials where the offence is non imprisonable.
According to Transform Justice, no research or testing has been done on these proposals and that prior research ‘suggests that there are no real savings in virtual hearings, that they result in more defendants being unrepresented and in more punitive sentences’. ‘We question the need for virtual hearings,’ the group says. The group continues: ‘There is no and still won’t be (even after closures) a shortage of courtrooms. Many defendants and witnesses would prefer to appear in person than remotely.’
Transform Justice takes issue with ‘the necessity of the police detaining so many low level offenders, thus necessitating either a virtual hearing from police custody or an expensive trip in a secure van to the court’.
The group points out that vulnerable people – ‘those with learning difficulties, mental health problems, addictions and other disabilities, English as a second language’ – are ‘disproportionately represented’ amongst defendants. An assessment of the needs of the ‘vulnerable’ will be much more difficult remotely.
The briefing points to anecdotal evidence from prisoners that many inmatews are more than happy to take part in hearings via video-link but this is ‘usually because the experience of going to court is involves packing up all your worldly goods, getting up in the middle of the night, missing out on meals, travelling in a sweat box and then, if unlucky, ending up at different prison late at night from the one they left in the morning’.
At present it is possible to both plead guilty and be convicted of a motoring offence online and ministers are planning to allow more crimes to be dealt with this way. According to the MoJ: ‘Around half of all cases heard in magistrates’ courts in England and Wales are summary-only, non imprisonable offences where there is no identifiable victim and could potentially be tried under this procedure.’
The risk of an online system is that those charged will not understand the full implications of pleading guilty, argues Transform Justice. ‘Every conviction carries a criminal record. Where an individual has two cautions or convictions, their record can pose a considerable barrier to getting employment throughout their life.’
The briefing argues that proposals are based upon ‘the assumption’ that plea hearings in the magistrates’ or crown court are ‘a purely administrative hearing, that people know whether they are guilty or not, and that no debate or discussion is necessary’. ‘Providing the means to and encouraging defendants to plead online will lead to more defendants representing themselves since the process of “doing it yourself” may appear easy,’ the group says.
‘The criminal justice system is complex and its sanctions are life changing. Particularly for serious offences, we do not feel that defendants should be entering a plea unrepresented. The implications of pleading guilty, even for a minor offence, are significant including a criminal record for life.’
In order to satisfy the obligation that the courts are properly open to scrutiny, the Bill is proposing the public can follow virtual hearings by the ‘booths’ in court building. The proposals were ‘an attempt to graft existing open justice principles onto new structures’ without research or consultation, the group added.
Transform Justice on the Prisons and Courts Bill
- The criminal court proposals seem to have been introduced in haste, in many cases without research, evidence or informal or formal consultation with experts and stakeholders
- Most changes have not been costed, and the impact on remand and sentences has not been modelled
- The move to online and virtual justice threatens to significantly increase the number of unrepresented defendants, to further discriminate against vulnerable defendants, to inhibit the relationship between defence lawyers and their clients, and to make justice less open
- Our criminal justice system is very complex and its fairness rests on parties understanding and participating in the process. This is difficult to achieve even when everyone is in a courtroom. Fundamental principles of justice and human rights are risked if we take justice wholly or partially out of the courtroom
This article first appeared on the Justice Gap here.
- Bach Commission calls for ‘legally enforceable’ right to justice and for eligibility to legal aid to cover half of all households - 22nd September 2017
- ‘I don’t think we’ve listened enough,’ says head of courts - 20th September 2017
- JusticeWatch: Getting away with it - 15th September 2017
- JusticeWatch: Need legal aid? Google it - 8th September 2017
- ‘Nine years of austerity’ makes delivery of justice ‘ever more difficult’, says Lord Chief Justice - 8th September 2017
- ‘Barely a third’ of immigration detainees aware of entitlement to free legal advice - 7th September 2017
- LASPO cuts leave thousands of lone migrant children at ‘serious risk’, says Children’s Society - 5th September 2017
- JusticeWatch: Time to get back to work… - 31st August 2017
- North Kensington Law Centre and Liberty to host Justice First fellows - 30th August 2017
- JusticeWatch: LV over the summer - 10th August 2017