HMCTS will answer questions raised at its court safety webinar by the end of next week (Jan 29).
Many questions on ventilation, cleaning, listing policy, remote hearings, remote juries have been raised.
Also some personal experiences shared:
QC says: I'm currently involved in a murder trial where there are approx 30 people in a courtroom with no fresh air. Is that considered safe in respect of the transmission of Covid 19?
Answer: Ventilation is a red line...if as reported that would not be compliant with standards.
Q: This all sounds very good but the reality is these measures are not adhered to. There is no sanction for refusal to wear masks at court. Should judges treat an unjustified refusal it as a contempt?
A: Security guards at courts have powers to enforce rules
Lawyer: "I've found blood on public/advocates toilet floor & other fluids. Why isn't there a document on toilet walls which security staff/HMCTS have to sign each hour when toilets should be checked? Why no bins in toilets to prevent tissues being thrown away around basin?
Defence lawyer at December Old Bailey trial: "It was necessary to see my vulnerable client regularly in the cells throughout the working week. We had to use the small, unventilated interview rooms, sitting on fixed chairs which are in turn fixed to the table.
Same lawyer: "We were less than a metre apart. Even wearing masks, this did not feel safe. By Friday I contracted Covid-19 & became very unwell. Jury had to be discharged. No one from HMCTS contacted me to investigate."
His details were passed to Serco who manage cells
"I have yet to see an opened window at court, or any attempt to ventilate a courtroom during the court day. Why is there no system in place to air courtrooms?"
Consultation rooms occupied by too many people: "HMCTS staff and security have done nothing in practice - why is that?"
"A defence lawyer, usher, security guard and some cell staff have been positively diagnosed with COVID over a period of time - at NO POINT did we receive any notification of this & when asked...the response was that there had 'been cases but no-one was considered at risk'."
"This week I attended Crown Court to prosecute a floating trial & spent 3 hours sitting in a small robing room with no opening windows
Everyone in there was socially distanced and wearing masks, but are Public Health England happy with that? Is HMCTS confident that room is safe?"
"Is there any soap & hot water at Medway yet?"
"When will taps stop cutting off automatically at 5 secs in Westminster mags? It makes it impossible to wash hands properly and safely for 20 seconds."
"Westminster mags do not clean between cases- what are you doing about this?"
Intermediary: "Several of the live-link rooms I am asked to work in are quite small without external ventilation. To appear on the video screen I have been asked by more than one judge to sit closer to the witness (less than 1m)."
Also intermediary: "I was assisting a child witness...live-link room had sign on the door saying the room could accommodate 3 people.
Fine but...live-link technology failed - a 4th person (usher) had to come in to for several minutes to try and rectify the issue."
Why are court security not stopping people attending who should not be? i.e. more than 1 family/friend attending with def or a family member attending in the absence of a victim at a sentencing hearing.
Both appear to be in contravention of Covid restrictions."
Lawyer: "Crown Court Judge in Liverpool asked me to host the defendant during a trial in my office. He didn't ask about dimensions of my office, whether we were Covid-free?
Is this going to become normal?"
All but one cubicle shut in ladies toilets: "It means that we all end up using the same cubicle (which means infected aerosols are concentrated in that one cubicle) and means we have to queue outside for minutes to use the single cubicle."
"At Reading mags I saw 8 ppl walk into court without masks. They said they were exempt.
One coughed constantly for 3 hours in the waiting area, leaving only to smoke. Security said they couldn't ask for proof of exemption or insist on masks.
Isn't all hard work being undermined?"
"At my local court, to get into the cells you have to stand in an interim room, 10cm from staff while they lock the door and lean over you to open the next one.
Why is this being ignored? Lots of the cell staff there have had COVID. It is appalling."
"I was told in a trial in Wolverhampton involving 16 witnesses, every day one person tested positive but nothing was done
We MUST be vaccinated ASAP. I contracted Covid having been in trial and as a result of my client attending from prison with someone that had tested positive."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Lockdown breach prosecutions are largely done behind closed doors in London. Most people don't know they're happening. The public aren't told about them.
I've looked into the case of three men & a woman caught having beers together in the park on April 18 to shed a bit of light.
First off, these are Single Justice Procedure cases dealt with on the papers alone. No open hearing, no prosecutor, no defence lawyer, just a magistrate & legal advisor using the documents put in front of them to take decisions.
These four people were spotted by police in Brent Park on April 18, drinking beer in a 'den' at a time when everyone had to stay at home unless you had a reasonable excuse to be out and about.
There's nothing to suggest these people weren't in breach of the coronavirus laws.
Curious goings-on at Westminster magistrates in prosecutions for breaking the first coronavirus lockdown:
- Convictions for offences ppl weren't prosecuted for
- Hefty fines handed out which may exceed the legal maximum
- Police allowed to try again when paperwork is botched
Westminster mags is using the Single Justice Procedure for these cases, behind-closed-doors with just a magistrate & legal advisor present to deal with them 'on the papers'.
I'm happy to report the #OpenJustice issues I highlighted have been looked into, the court has apologised and promised things will be different in the future.
The paperwork now I've seen, however, raises some brand-new questions.
Lord Chief Justice says he hopes for 300 courts by end of December that could run simultaneous jury trials.
Crown Courts running flat out next year could chip away around 50 cases a week from the backlog, he says.
"It will nonetheless take a long time to recover the backlog"
LCJ says he would be "disappointed" to put it mildly if there wasn't funding from the Treasury next year to allow courts to run at full capacity.
Acknowledges criminal cases coming in are more complex, and the new influx of CPS lawyers and police officers will add to the backlog
Extended opening hours pilot - LCJ says it's made a "modest contribution" so far, and it's not clear whether they help to increase volume of cases heard or not.
"It isn't obvious, and depends very much on the nature of cases being dealt with on that level".
Secret Justice: London's Covid-19 lockdown breakers are being prosecuted behind closed doors and under a veil of secrecy: standard.co.uk/news/london/co…
I don't use the term 'secret justice' lightly, but there's no other way to describe what's been happening here.
- 100s of prosecutions dealt with behind closed doors
- Vital open justice safeguards ignored and forgotten
- Obviously flawed prosecutions going through unchallenged
When the Single Justice Procedure was introduced, it was justified as prosecutions for lowly offences - speeding, fare dodging, TV licences etc.
The media warned that #openjustice shouldn't be swept away - that one day people would care
There are some serious problems at the top of the justice system right now. That's undisputable and very concerning.
I'd like to take a moment to highlight an issue at the bottom of the system, which unless commented on, might pass by unnoticed.
141 suspected lockdown breakers are being shovelled through the justice system this week, under the Single Justice Procedure (SJP). Those familiar with my musings will know this involves closed-door hearings, little scrutiny, & sometimes a mighty battle to find out what happened
The SJP system is set up for summary only, non-imprisonable, victimless crimes, so there's no question offences brought under coronavirus legislation in place between March and mid-May fits the bill. As far as I can tell the courts are entitled to deal with these cases like this.
When the offence of assaulting an emergency worker in the course of their duty was created in 2018, there was rumblings from Crown Court judges about it ‘causing problems’, as a mass of cases previously dealt with by magistrates were now landing on their plates.
The reason was the courts were essentially being told to take these incidents more seriously, a shiny new ‘either-way’ offence with increased possible sentence. Cases were being viewed as too serious for magistrates, and so landing in the Crown Court in their droves.
Whether you supported this tougher approach or not, the Crown Courts were, & still are, being over-stretched by lengthy periods of historic cutbacks, courthouse closures, and reductions in judicial sitting days. Add to the mix now the mounting workload post-coronavirus lockdown.