COVID-19 has set everyone back on their heels, effectively plummeting the world into a shutdown. Many states in the U.S. have been operating under a stay-at-home effect for almost two months, with the exception of “essential workers.” Judges, lawyers and other court personnel are not considered essential workers, which begs the question, “how do we ensure justice during these uncertain times?”
A report from the University of Surrey (UK) is shedding light on the impact of a new “video booking tool” used for first-appearance remand hearings in court.
“Our report provides valuable insights on video-enabled justice for the court service and court users just as the COVID-19 pandemic seems poised to lead to a dramatic rise in the use of technology and other innovations to ensure the effective continued administration of justice,” said Nigel Fielding, lead study author and professor of criminology at Surrey.
Since June 2018, five police forces have employed a video-based scheduling tool and virtual lobby to help manage appearances by detainees, defense, prosecution, probation and interpreters. In April 2020, two police forces in Sussex and Surrey started using the streaming service as well in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. By minimizing the need for participants to gather in person, the courts system was able to keep remand hearings running—which was not the case for other courts throughout the UK and the U.S.
Fielding’s evaluation found that the impact of video booking tool on court processes was benign but relatively modest. He found that the rate of adjournments was higher in video court and increased in the hearings observed after the introduction of the booking tool. Custodial sentences were more common in video hearings, relative to traditional hearings.
According to the study, the video solution had the most positive effect on the listing process. The video was described as “relatively unobtrusive” and it “did not appear to affect the individual roles of courtroom professionals beyond its intended purpose.”
A concern raised in Fielding’s report centered on “open justice.” Video hearings afford less opportunity for family members and others to observe the proceedings, and Fielding notes this could have broader implications and “might undermine trust and confidence in the system.”
“Defendants also point to the need to consider whether the delivery of justice in technology-mediated courtrooms should replicate traditional in-person practices, or whether there is a need to re-imagine justice in the digital era, including finding other ways of enabling family support,” the report reads.
While video court did not appear to affect a defendant’s demeanor, the report did find that defendants in video court were less likely to have legal representation compared with non-video hearings where police bail had been denied. At present, the booking tool flags a case as ready to proceed regardless of representation, but Fielding said this could be altered if representation was thought to be essential, thereby circumventing this disadvantage.
Unsurprisingly, the report concludes that resource and infrastructure constraints across the court and police forces inhibited the video tool’s optimal functioning. More training for courtroom staff and higher-quality courtroom AV is critical.