Thread by @kirkkorner

The Judicial Review and Courts Bill poses a massive threat to #openjustice particularly coverage of magistrates court proceedings.

You wouldn't know it from the official press release, relegating these changes to "a range of other courts measures" in the footnotes.

What is being proposed will be music to the ears of defendants who'd rather no one knew they've been accused of a crime

Don't fancy appearing in open court hearing to face the charge, indicate a plea, and for the case to be sent to the crown court? No problem, that's all covered

The new Bill, if passed, allows for:
- indications of plea to be given in writing
- allocation of trial to magistrate or crown courts to be done administratively
- committals to crown court without a hearing, if guilty plea indicated.

Another section allows a court to get on with cases in the absence of the defendant, so long as they send a lawyer to represent them.

This is likely to be particularly popular with celebrities/politicians/tycoons etc who don't fancy a brief stint in the dock that day.

It's possible these administrative hearings (ie behind closed doors) will come with promises of 'openness'.

Years of Single Justice Procedure experience tells me measures will be sub-standard & chronically understaffed admin offices have to deal with problems. I hope I'm wrong

As @MarkHannaMedia has already pointed out, the impact on open justice looks like being profound:

https://twitter.com/MarkHannaMedia/status/1417858729781997577

HMCTS needs to now step up and say why this isn't anything other than an assault on court reporting and transparency.

The value to court reporters of those first court appearances is immense.
Finding out what exactly someone is accused of, the shape of the case against them, who the accused is, how the trial might play out.
All of that looks like being lost in the relentless drive for efficiency

I have found time & time again when cases slip into the magistrates court unannounced (a list isn't sent out or it is left off the official record) it is so much harder to track up to crown court
Open hearings leave a trail, administrative decisions are so much harder to pin down

And for good measure, the Bill also allows coroners to hold inquests 'in writing' when they don't consider there's a public interest in holding an open hearing.

Everyone knows coroners already operate according to their own rules. This could make things far worse.

The changes to Judicial Review have dominated the conversation so far, and that is a very important aspect of this Bill.

The court procedural changes could, on first glance, look less important, but I hope they get a decent share of the debate.