Thread by @kirkkorner

Sitting in today on @JUSTICEhq mock trial, being conducted entirely virtually.
I have defendant's details, names of counsel and judge, checked on reporting restrictions, got a witness list, and have been helpfully provided a draft prosecutor's opening note.

Feeling very much like an Oxdown Gazette reporter, waiting for the @NCTJ exam to get going. Was hoping the case would involve several animals, a highly improbably scenario involving the vicar & an ombudsman, & the flooding of the River Ox.

Sadly it's an assault case in Pimlico.

We're not off to the best of starts - delayed by tech difficulties.
It seems grappling with new technology will be a recurring theme as courts adapt their processes.
For the observer, you're left in the dark & with the nagging feeling that everyone might have started without you.

This is an evolving project - it's JUSTICE's third mock virtual trial. They've already considered how an interpreter would be added to the mix, I think thought must go into how the media would interact with the trial process, eg. dealing with a reporting restriction application.

Proceedings have begun, the judge has done his opening words, and the jury are being sworn.
Just one snag, the sound isn't on.

I've whizzed off an email to the clerk, but no joy as yet.

Participants have a part of the screen each - judge, prosecutor, clerk, defendant, defence barrister, and each individual juror. There are 13 jurors on screen - presumably 12 and a spare, though I'm not sure about that.
Everyone dialling-in remotely from their homes.

Sound is now on, we missed part of the judge's opening remarks.
There was communication with the court to rectify the issue, but the court went on without us.
I firmly believe courts should never sit if tech isn't working for public/press. Equivalent of locking the court doors.

One of the highlights of this experiment is it is being overseen by retired Judge Alistair McCreath. Always a treat.
He tells jurors not to speak over each other on the link, and that if they drop off he might have to tell them 'time to wake up'.

Judge says virtual view of witnesses is "as good if not better" than view of them physically sat down in court.
He says there's research that demeanour "does not help in an accurate assessment" & can be misleading. "What actually matters is what people say, not how they say it".

Jurors told they can't use email or electronic devices and have promised they are alone at their remote locations.

The judge accepts that he will have to trust them on that, as there really isn't a way to check.

One thing missing so far has been jury selection. It's a mock trial, so they have likely not bothered with it, but it would be a process that poses its own difficulties.

The prosecutor is speaking directly at me, and everyone else, thanks to the tech set-up. That's a difference with actual court.
This is the same deal with witnesses, and we can see each juror's face quite clearly.

Another point Judge McCreath made was that blind people can act as jurors, magistrates, and judges. They do not have the chance to see physical demeanour, but can do their roles perfectly well.

First witness hasn't been provided in advance with the words of the affirmation, so the judge solves this by saying it out-loud and asking the witness to repeat it.

Is the witness alone? He says he is. But how does anyone know?
Judge says: "I'm not going to doubt your word, but if I asked you to move the device around, would it turn out you were indeed telling the truth?"
Witness: "I am telling the truth".

Would that be sufficient?

Incidentally, the case is this: Football fan attacked with wheel jack after complaining about loud music in petrol station row.

Complainant was on his way back from a Wembley match, I want to know what the match was & what kind of loud music was playing - prosecutor might help

Exhibit shown to the court - picture of the wheel jack comes up on screen alongside the faces of everyone. Clear for everyone to see.

It seems the participants have a bundle of documents as well, it's not easy in this system for me to ask for a copy of the bundle.

We have lost a juror three times so far, connection cutting out. This brings proceedings to a halt as soon as someone notices.
It's an obvious problem that will come up regularly in virtual courts.

Defence case is the complainant was the aggressor, quite a common line.
Defence barrister suggests he is "tall and well-built". Witness says he is, it's the kind of thing that jurors would have been able to assess when he got to the witness box. But we can't really tell here.

Defendant interrupts cross-exam to ask to speak to his lawyer. In court it would be a quiet word at the back of court or step outside court, but in this format it's going to be done differently. There is a virtual private area for them to chat, apparently.

This break would be an ideal time to chat to the prosecutor, instructing lawyer, or police officer, to check on details in the case. But the screen has gone blank & we are 'in recess'.
I can email him of course, but physical interaction in court is an important part of the job.

As we are all learning, people get judged quite strongly based on the backdrop they choose.

The prosecutor has gone for strong red, defence barrister has neutral white walls, and witness 2 has a black square behind his head, which I'm finding rather distracting.

A consequence of the visual layout is that, unlike real court, the witness is not necessarily the centre of attention.

I found myself just now watching intently as the judge drank some water, & I keep scrutinising the various movements of jurors like a game of Celebrity Squares.

I really want the witness to be moved into the centre of the screen, and made much bigger.

It's also fair to observe that the drama of the courtroom is severely lacking in this format.

Oh. The screen has frozen. I've emailed the clerk to alert him to the problem.
The judge has been notified, and said that if this was a real case they would stop at this point.

Unfortunately, I don't think some judges would halt proceedings just because the media/public can't hear. It needs to be a golden rule for all participants and observers at all hearings if there's to be any faith in the virtual system.

They brought the lunch break forward to try to sort out the sound issues, but alas we're still on mute. Court appears to be continuing without us, I think we've had the defendant's interview transcript and he might be giving evidence shortly.

While I appreciate the judge wanting to keep the experiment going, what is happening now is a fundamental question that the courts would have to address if they want to go virtual, not just in trials but other hearings. If the public and press can't hear, is it open justice?

If this was a real trial, I'd be in peril right now. I'd have reported the prosecution case but am completely missing his defence to the charge. If he's acquitted, I'd need to get sharply up to speed on how he contested the allegations.

Aside from anything else, I was quite looking forward to hearing his story. Apparently the incident was something of a class dispute, posh v Essex. One didn't like the other's taste in music.

This format will raise plenty of eyebrows, legally. But from a purely open justice angle it's got elements that are good.

Right now people want jury trials back up & running but don't necessarily want 25 reporters turning up. Some of them could use a remote link in this way.

There's much better accessibility to court documents & exhibits, sound (when working) is great, & you can see what's happening well.
Reporters should always be given access to the courtroom if they want it, but some would be happy with this format if they don't fancy travelling

That's all a bit academic if the link stops working though.

I think the defendant is now being cross-examined. I'm going to miss his whole evidence.

If this was real and the judge was true to his word to stop proceedings, a whole afternoon of court time would be lost.

I'm back in again, there was a problem with the sound on my end and apparently others watching the feed could hear.
I've missed the defence case, but could recovery the situation through the defence closing speech.

The defendant has been quiet throughout today's trial, save for giving his evidence.
I wonder what might happen in a virtual trial if the defendant refuses to be quiet. You could mute him, but what if he had a reasonable interjection to make?

The jury are now heading to a virtual private space to deliberate. They will signal 'through the chatline' if they have a verdict.
There is no jury bailiff in this format.

Some deliberation over how they know if there's a verdict. The clerk will monitor, and email judge, lawyers, and defendant to let them know.

In the real court, we'd wait for a public address call to court, but I guess we just have to sit and watch the screen.

If able to, I may have chimed in just now to ask if the media can be emailed in the same way.
It's the little things, but we do need to know what's happening the same way as other participants.

It was a hung jury in the end, though they didn't get to the majority direction. After a show of hands it looked like 9-3 in favour of convicting, though it was difficult to see.

And rather abruptly, the mock trial ended with the public gallery being cut off.