Over the last 12 monthsI have increasingly “attended” such hearings in places such as Lewis, Shetland and Orkney in this way. This facility is not offered as being automatic: I have to ask the court and sheriff’s permission.
And my experience is that sheriffs are generally amenable.
The benefits
The approach isn’t without its challenges, but there are clear benefits.
For a start, there’s great potential to make the whole legal process more accessible for clients, less expensive, and even quicker: people living in more remote areas don’t always have to pay for solicitors to come to them, with the associated travel and accommodation fees.
They also don’t have to pay for time spent waiting in court until the case is called, and this associated reduced cost makes choosing a solicitor from further afield more economical too: widening the choice for clients for who they want to represent them.
There’s an environmental aspect here as well.
Cutting unnecessary journeys is a good thing for reducing our carbon footprint, and I’d be lying if I said I missed the trips to the more remote courts during the winter months. In practical terms too, even in the summer, with tourism flourishing in these areas, it’s becoming harder to get a hotel room or travel ticket.
That said, for substantive hearings, it’s still very much the norm to appear in person.
What’s the background?
The Scottish court system recognises there’s a need to reduce unnecessary costs for solicitors travelling far and wide to attend court for relatively straightforward hearings — such as the procedural route a case should take. These hearings take a matter of minutes to be dealt with, but can, disproportionately, involve a lengthy journey for the solicitor.
In addition, here in Scotland, the rules changed so that permission can be sought from the court to allow a witness to give evidence by video link.
This approach is very much in line with what we’re seeing in England and Wales wherethe £1billion modernisation programme being implemented by HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) will likely involve more remote video hearings, online pleas for minor offences, video replay facilities for jurors in their retiring rooms, and fewer physical courtrooms.
So overall, is it a good thing?
The move has been criticised for creating a detached “virtual reality” where the testimony of witnesses cannot be truly tested. There are also concerns about the impact on vulnerable individuals, or those for whom English is not their first language.
My view is that as in all walks of life technology has its limitations.
This video link approach is ideal for some court hearings, in particular for those living in remote areas, to avoid incurring unnecessary expenses and travel time to deal with a fairly straightforward or non-contentious matter.
For hearings where the court needs to be persuaded of a particular issue, and the success or failure of a battle or the war is at stake, or for evidential hearings where witnesses will be giving evidence — where their reliability and credibility is being tested — my view is it’s important to stick with tradition.
That means it’s likely more appropriate for all parties and their legal representatives and witnesses to attend in person.
An earlier version of this article appeared in The Leader on 10 October, 2018.
