Thread by @kirkkorner

"Why are they still appearing by videolink?", asked a member of court staff, of barristers in a sentencing hearing.

"A lot of people are getting sick", replied her colleague.

"Maybe they just don't want to come anymore", said the first.

At first, I was annoyed to hear this kind of comment, as if caution & safety measures should be set aside simply because the pandemic has been going on for a while.

Covid-19 cases are rising sharply, shouldn't remote solutions be preferred - if possible - as winter approaches?

A top judge the other day said: "We've now reached a stage in the playing out of the pandemic when it is possible to contemplate a gradual increase in the volume of cases that are heard in person in
court".

It might be 'possible' but is that kind of sweeping approach sensible?

I didn't agree with the staff member's judgment, but there was a hint of a good point being made in there:

What are good reasons for joining a court hearing remotely? What does - and doesn't - justify the deployment of the CVP videolink system?

Judges seem to have basically been left to make their own minds up, creating a very uneven approach from court to court.

I'm intensely grateful for the embrace of CVP by the courts I cover, but find myself occasionally bewildered when a request is turned down, without a reason.

Doesn't there need to be a national protocol for remote courts, now and more importantly in the future?

When the pandemic and health aren't reasons for not attending in- person, everyone is going to need some idea how and why decisions on remote attendance are being made.