Read on Twitter
An anonymous Circuit Judge offers their view on digital hearings and the anxieties of where we ought to draw the line. This is beautifully written. I found the concern of this judge to do their very best with the human side of the job to be quite moving.
http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/remote-justice-a-judges-perspective/">https://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/remote-ju...
http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/remote-justice-a-judges-perspective/">https://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/remote-ju...
This is not a trash job from the anti-digital:
“I appreciate that in order to deliver justice in the time of Covid-19 we must accept compromise ...share my experiences however, as there have been times that the extent to which I have felt constrained has been uncomfortable”
“I appreciate that in order to deliver justice in the time of Covid-19 we must accept compromise ...share my experiences however, as there have been times that the extent to which I have felt constrained has been uncomfortable”
And it’s not a stuck-in-the-mud job from a dinosaur:
“I am an IT-literate judge, but feel dense or lacking in vision because I find it difficult to imagine doing the care cases or fact-finding hearings that I used to do week-in and week-out via a video platform.”
“I am an IT-literate judge, but feel dense or lacking in vision because I find it difficult to imagine doing the care cases or fact-finding hearings that I used to do week-in and week-out via a video platform.”
It’s about where we draw the line with human issues in human cases:
“You cannot smile reassuringly at a party, cannot make any realistic assessment of their level of anxiety and nerves, cannot put them at ease by showing them you are listening intently and carefully...”
“You cannot smile reassuringly at a party, cannot make any realistic assessment of their level of anxiety and nerves, cannot put them at ease by showing them you are listening intently and carefully...”
It’s about wider concerns in the taking of evidence from vulnerable parties digitally:
“...what if her ex-partner was bombarding her with threatening messages? Or threatened to record whatever she said in evidence and share it on Facebook with all her friends and family...”
“...what if her ex-partner was bombarding her with threatening messages? Or threatened to record whatever she said in evidence and share it on Facebook with all her friends and family...”
It’s about the “feel” of cases at court in person:
“With no usher to marshal the parties, manage their expectations, or obtain helpful information...you have to take the cases in list order, sticking rigidly to the timetable... creates a pressure to make decisions quickly.”
“With no usher to marshal the parties, manage their expectations, or obtain helpful information...you have to take the cases in list order, sticking rigidly to the timetable... creates a pressure to make decisions quickly.”
It’s about not being near a client:
“The two and a half hour long hearing was punctuated by a relentless pinging, sometimes every few seconds ...as they fired off instructions ... it must have been almost impossible for their lawyers to concentrate.”
“The two and a half hour long hearing was punctuated by a relentless pinging, sometimes every few seconds ...as they fired off instructions ... it must have been almost impossible for their lawyers to concentrate.”
And about our working lives:
“It is intense, exhausting, and to be honest, lonely work.”
“It is intense, exhausting, and to be honest, lonely work.”
It’s a piece about balance:
“Technology will improve, we will gain from sharing our experiences and collectively develop a better understanding of what will work and what won’t, and where to draw the line so that we do not compromise more than we should.”
“Technology will improve, we will gain from sharing our experiences and collectively develop a better understanding of what will work and what won’t, and where to draw the line so that we do not compromise more than we should.”
And a piece that’s positive:
“I am not arguing against the idea of remote hearings at all – ...while the crisis sustains or in the long-term...a valuable opportunity to connect people who would otherwise struggle to attend ... innovation in this area is long overdue.”
“I am not arguing against the idea of remote hearings at all – ...while the crisis sustains or in the long-term...a valuable opportunity to connect people who would otherwise struggle to attend ... innovation in this area is long overdue.”
“...I hope to contribute to a debate, and I ask for some recognition that for the people whose job it is to deliver justice to families, how we go about it as well as the bare fact of it being delivered, really really matters – to us and to the families at the end of the line.”
This is a must read for us all. It’s in the context of the family court but the parallels with crime are clear.
We are - in some hearings - adoring the new tech. It will change how we work and transform our lives. It’s quicker, smarter, cheaper and better. I can’t wait.
We are - in some hearings - adoring the new tech. It will change how we work and transform our lives. It’s quicker, smarter, cheaper and better. I can’t wait.
But in some hearings - the most human of hearings - we can’t replicate the human side of it. The subtleties of human behaviour, the nuance of human feeling.
Our debate won’t be about online hearings. They’re here to stay.
It will be about how and where and why we draw the line.
Our debate won’t be about online hearings. They’re here to stay.
It will be about how and where and why we draw the line.
Follow @seethrujustice for more.
