 Right, hello. I'm Nikki Padfield and I'm speaking to you from my rather scruffy study in Cambridge and we're gathered together to discuss criminal justice in a pandemic. I have to say that the University of Cambridge has never felt to me like an ivory tower and we academics have not, I think, traditionally felt ourselves to be isolated but at this time I certainly have out of touch. It's been really difficult for someone like me and probably someone like most of you in the audience to know what's really going on. So I am fantastically grateful to the panelists who joined us today who are going to help us understand some of these very difficult questions related to criminal justice in a pandemic. Thank you for the hundreds of you who I can't see who have I think joined us from all around the world mostly alumni of the University of Cambridge and we're very very pleased to have you joining us today. I'd like to start before I introduce the panel and thank the panel. I'd also like to thank two hidden colleagues one of whom is Dan Bates for his amazing IT support and the other is Claire Gordon our development whiz in the faculty who's also a barrister and concerned as we all are about the meaning of criminal justice in the COVID-19 pandemic. Today our focus is the courts exploring the reality I hope of daily life in magistrates courts and in the Crown Court from bail applications to sentencing what is going on at the cold face what has happened to trials what will happen to trials in the future there are many many questions which we will be addressing. I'm as I say really really grateful for this fabulous team who are going to speak in alphabetical order they are Simon Davis president of the law society and a partner of Clifford Chance then we have Avimbola Johnson barrister practising from 25 Bedford Row in London Ian Kelsey solicitor advocate head of crime at Kelsey and Hall in Bristol Amanda Pinto QC chair of the bar council who practices largely in international crime from 33 Chance relay. What I ask the panelists to do is each to speak for just four minutes depending on the muting that goes on whether I can shout loudly to shut them up after their four minutes or whether they are reliable timekeepers time will show but I've asked them just to speak for four minutes each I think we'll go from one to the next and then that on my mathematics should last significantly less than half an hour and the questions will be really interesting. Feel very free to chat to have your own opinions on the chat I'll be taking the questions though from the Q&A column so any questions that you'd like to put to the panel choose your panelists that you want to ask questions to if you want please use the Q&A button for your questions for the panel. The order that I've chosen is to start with Ian since his work of course starts in the police stations and that seems to be a good place to start. We'll go from Ian and then to Abby and then to Amanda and then finally Simon and so straight away do feel free to lock your questions as we go through but we'll turn straight away to Ian and you've got four minutes. Thank you. Thank you Nicky. I think the pandemic's shown an amazing ability of those agencies within the criminal justice system in the main to work together and particularly in police stations we found from the outset there was a bit of resistance from the police but we made it plain we weren't prepared to travel to police stations we wanted to keep our staff safe we wanted to remain safe and eventually we've managed to get to a system where most interviews are now being conducted over Skype where we beam into the police station and the police have been very good about that. Some force is not so good it's interesting how over the course of the pandemic since it started how some forces have been brought to heal much more quickly than others. In Bristol my own force even the Somerset were very very good but they did require a little bit of persuasion at the outset and that persuasion was none of us are going to the police station so what are you going to do about it and the end result was they realized they had to do something about it otherwise they would be conducting interviews which would be in breach of pace but it it did bring about a degree of consideration and thoughtfulness that came then into the magistrates court and we found that the cooperation there we're dealing with most hearings in the magistrates courts the only hearings really are those overnight prisoners again they're being dealt with by Skype the HMCTS representative who took on responsibility for arranging this in Bristol was absolutely first class the police have been absolutely first class and our district judge has been first class so we've managed to arrange a situation where we conduct pretty well all the magistrates court hearings from the safety of our offices or home making bail applications etc being into court so I think we've learned a fair bit through the pandemic I'm not saying it's ideal we do get we do get reasonable contact with the client we're able to speak to them sensibly and able to speak to them over Skype um but I don't think there's anything that substitutes for the real thing when if you can actually be next to the client and with them it's much better than being over the video link but on the other hand when you balance safety as we've had to do over the course of the past couple of months then I think we've achieved a situation that's as good as we could possibly hope to achieve um I don't know whether there's anything else you want me to talk about the I can talk about the Crown Court from our perspective as well. Bristol is one of the first courts that had jury trials that the first jury trial a murder trial involving a youth ended yesterday um I was sat in my office and it was clearly an acquittal because I heard the whoops of delight from outside and I saw the young detainee who had been charged with murder walking free from court um I went across to the Crown Court and saw it it's worked very well we've ended up with using four court or three courts for the trial one court for the jury deliberations and congregation the second court for the press and the public the trial was them in in that court was video linked in slight problems with sound but not too bad and then the main court the jury were in the main court socially distanced all the way around the court and it seemed to work very well I spoke to everybody concerned and they were very happy with the process so that I think is where we're going to be moving to thereafter with trials moving forward I the only point I would make is it will be a trickle of trials it will not be a stream or anything like a tsunami it will be a long time before we get back to normal I fear thank you very much indeed that was a interesting introduction I'm sure we'll come back later on to what you called reasonable contact in the police station because reasonable is a wonderful word is it not and whether all suspects also think they've had reasonable contact we perhaps will discover in due course but that was a really interesting start thank you Abby straight over to you thanks and I think what I'd like to talk about really is just sort of the overall themes that we've seen from the way the pandemic has affected the criminal justice system and I think the criminal justice system is a pretty precise barometer for the state of inequality and injustice within our societal structure and for me the way the pandemic has hit the system it's really highlighted all of the weaknesses and the issues that we were already creaking along with due to being woefully underfunded and that in turn has highlighted these wider societal issues that we're battling with as a country to see that we can just trace what's happened with the coronavirus act and its sister regulations during lockdown that they are wide ranging pieces of legislation that create a wave of new offenses and they were passed with very little oversight or explanation they've really paved the way for a huge amount of wrongful convictions under the act we saw that there was a cps review the results of which were announced around the 14th of May that revealed that 44 charges were brought under the act which were wrong all of them were wrong and that 13 resulted in wrongful convictions and we would have seen all of us in the newspapers the case of Rida Noe who caught the attention of Faria Karim who was a timed journalist and Kirsty Brimlow QC Mr Noe was charged, arrested and charged with an offence under schedule 21 of the act she spent two nights in custody before being produced at court she was unrepresented in the magistrates court without any evidence being called she was convicted and she was fined all in her absence and the fact that that happened it's not simply because of the pandemic the groundwork for that wrongful conviction really that was laid through years of emphasis in the court system and in the magistrates court in particular on speedy summary results at the expense of justice it was laid through the attrition of access to representation which means that we are becoming too used to convicting defendants without them having anybody on their side and I think that the act and the pandemic certainly it's added to the hasty way in which she was convicted but that's because of this history of the attrition of personhood that we've seen within the system that emphasis on getting a result quickly meant that no one from the police the CPS or the district judge spotted the fact that she was wrongly charged and Kirsty Brimlow herself said that it only took a quick review for her to spot that error and I think it highlights also a wider concern about the needs to ensure the public and the media remain engaged with the criminal justice system to ensure that the players within the system are held accountable that they continue to maintain a system that seemed to be fair as well as actually being fair because you wonder whether if the public gallery were full if the players in that courtroom would have questioned what's happening would have thought maybe we shouldn't proceed with this so quickly she's not in court she hasn't said anything she didn't speak actually she didn't speak from the moment that she was arrested through to her conviction so a concern that I have about the legacy of the pandemic is that it's really pushing us towards rushed results and potentially unfair outcomes pre-pandemic we had a backlog of 37 000 cases because of reduced court sittings due to that lack of funding and that's only going to be massively increased by the end of lockdown so I worry about how these cases this backlog is going to be pushed through the system in an effort to clear it and I hope that this pushes the government towards recognising that the only way to fight through this pandemic is to put money into the system to make sure that we are not creating a legacy that continues as a tradition of personhood and participation within the system thank you very much indeed there we have questions of inequality public engagement speedy justice um fears for the future and um I'm sure that you've raised lots of things which we will come back to in due course thank you very much indeed and on to you Amanda for your insights yeah well thank you very much I thought I'd start by asking what does access to justice for the public mean it means I think regardless of your wealth or circumstances regardless of where you live who you are or what problem you face you can use the justice system effectively and before the crisis that meant we needed to consider basics courts that were open close enough to be accessible justice delivered by judges without inordinate denies and Abby's just spoke about the 37 000 cases in the backlog in crime alone before the pandemic listing cases realistically so that citizens don't pay or have to turn up unnecessarily for ineffective hearings a justice system that uses technology wisely and suitably and a judiciary that is valued and supported and of course it includes appropriate legal help for all but before COVID-19 fewer and fewer people with legal problems had access to legal aid and litigants in person were confronted by real problems identifying the strengths and weaknesses of their cases and causing enormous stress and delay across the system so that was the background against which we must ask the questions that Nikki has posed we know that the cases adding to the backlog are adding at the rate of a thousand a month in crime alone and in civil we know that they are mounting too and what is the long-term effect of the backlog of cases well there is no infrastructure we say to deal with that backlog unless the legal professions as well as the rest of the criminal justice system has investment in it now with even with jury trials restarting that things won't be returning to the same level of hearings pre COVID the institute for government's recent report shows that in the crown court of course the volume of jury trials fell by 100% in April it's only just started again but it cannot be more than a third of the maximum if three courts are being used for every trial and in fact it will be less because of the capacity of court rooms to hear with social distancing but if that were the case with crown court volumes even with remote hearings it's not going to be possible we think according to the institute for government's report for more than 50 or perhaps 80% at the very best after six months of court hearings to be heard and that doesn't just mean trials it means all hearings and so that means that defendants and victims will be forced to wait more than six months for a trial longer the highest average waiting list ever recorded you might hear government officials say well we've had bigger backlogs before but we've never had bigger backlogs with this really significant uncertainty going forward secondly I think there is a real problem with legal aid just before the pandemic the criminal legal aid review which was started last year in which the government acknowledged the significant underfunding of the criminal justice system the consultation on the accelerated areas for barristers and solicitors was out and about to close so that meant that we were about to we thought get more money for the professions and therefore more access to justice for individuals that's on hold at the moment we're hoping that that will be reinvigorated very quickly because really we need to work towards long-term sustainability of the professions in order for the public to have access to justice and can I just finish on a negative note before adding three positives I'm afraid to say that those who have been most seriously hit by the pandemic at the bar according to our surveys are those doing publicly funded work and even worse figures for BAME and those who have come from unusual or non-traditional backgrounds and if I can just add some statistics the impact on the bar is that 69 percent of those doing publicly funded work cannot survive for six months that's until October without a financial assistance but for BAME and those with social mobility that if they are doubly hit they're more likely to be doing publicly funded work they're more likely to face greater financial pressures and our statistics show that 84 percent of BAME barristers do not believe they'll be able to survive a year without financial aid and I think that that is a very serious issue for the future not just of the bar but of the senior judiciary because of course the bar is a feeder for that can I just add a couple of positives technology has come on in leaps and bounds what should have been rolled out in the courts in two years has been really rolled out to an extraordinary degree in 10 weeks obviously adaptations need to be made obviously it's not a panacea to all the problems but I think it will have a significant positive impact if used wisely and properly on the delivery of justice across the board including criminal justice and secondly to echo what Ian said at the very beginning the question that has was raised really in in in a silent way at the beginning but which has been answered hugely positively is the ability and the willingness of agencies right across the criminal justice system to work together collaboratively and I think without any one of those parts it would not have worked and that is why there needs to be investment right across the board from the very beginning in policing to the very end in prison and probation and every single step along the way in order that everybody involved in the criminal justice system in whichever position where there is a defendant a witness or a victim they all have access to justice through this system being supported from start to finish thank you very much indeed so huge concerns about access to justice legal aid delays but some positives in relation to the use of technology and collaboration Simon thank you very much Nicky I'm perhaps in the fortunate position is that I'm not a criminal practitioner but I'm also in the fortunate position that I therefore do a great deal of listening to everybody who is involved in the criminal justice system coming last it's always going to be difficult to avoid going over some of the old ground most particularly in circumstances where my predecessor was Amanda Pinto because she and I speak almost every single moment of the day likewise in Kelsey in relation to his position as the co-head of the Law Society criminal law committee and the piece that I'm going to overlap on very slightly is this question about access to justice and what is this all actually about because sometimes that gets lost in a welter of statistics and data let me make that point good when I was asked to be interviewed by ITV Granada pre-recorded last week and I was expecting and I'd been told that I was going to be asked about what courts are open what kind of business is being done what's the impact and so on and so on absolutely not when I appeared the questions were all about how important it is that justice is not only done seem to be done but felt like it's being done and it was made absolutely clear to me this is by the way in a family court family law context but the points remain just as good in the criminal law that their people were not considering that they felt like they were having justice when they were on the end of a telephone dropping in dropping out not being able to see people not understanding what was being said then even on video bad lines again unable to read the language not being there not feeling at the end of it that in any sense that they felt that justice had been done so while Amanda is entirely right to say that one of the solutions to the backlog one of the solutions to reducing the amount of business which is unnecessarily in the courts is to remind ourselves why we have such a face-to-face all evidence system in the first place and it is so that those in the system feel that they're being heard and at the end of it whatever the result that they're sure that justice has been done the figures now in relation to the use of video are of course in one sense very impressive you see that in March some 550 hearings a day being dealt with by video or audio shot up into April 3000 but we need to make sure as we emerge from this that we allow data so we make sure that data and we make sure that technology remain our servants and not in any sense our masters and we therefore need to be very careful as we emerge from this that we do not say this has been wonderful this has been a cure to the reason why we had a backlog in the first place otherwise not only will people feel that justice has not been done but just pick up the point made by Abby Abby's point which is a very real one is that if justice is rushed then you may find that defendants are going to prison who should not but by the same token the times a little while ago that reported I have no idea whether it's true or not that there was a concern out there that the defendants who actually should be going to trial and should be going to jail will be coming forward and seeking to obtain deals from courts which meant that they were released in circumstances they would not have been beforehand and should not have been beforehand simply so that we can reduce backlogs so yes let's reduce backlog let's use technology but let's not lose sight of what the systems are supposed to be about thank you very much indeed very interesting to hear somebody talking about justice must be felt to be done more usually we hear about justice being seen to be done but I think the felt to be done was to me very interesting in my academic world there's a great deal about legitimacy for the system compliance and white people obey the law and the feeling is I think very very important thank you you have thrown open some fantastic questions we're collecting some lovely questions for answers anyone's welcome to answer any of them please panel don't all feel you have to answer all of them otherwise the time will go very quickly but I have to start with Jeffrey Lawrence's wonderful question thank you Jeffrey how do you define criminal justice what is the purpose of criminal justice perhaps I can turn the question around very slightly and say well we all know that justice is about fairness and it's very difficult to have um fairness and what feels like an unfair society criminal definitions we could get very bogged down and of course there are lots of contradictory purposes of criminal justice my way of perhaps focusing that question a little bit is have you felt the tensions underlying the purposes of criminal justice particularly strongly in the last few weeks who would like to have a go at Jeffrey's question or my version of it um sure I come in there Nikki um lovely I actually haven't felt any tension I felt firstly I think the first thing we need to say is criminal justice well what what does it achieve it it's about ensuring the rule of law it's about ensuring that people conduct themselves in a way that society would expect them to conduct themselves and it's about ensuring that we don't move to a system of anarchy so I think all of those I would say are the reasons for it have I felt tensions no I haven't really felt any tensions I felt in the main that everybody has been understanding of the position all the players in the criminal justice system have been in um and I think actually we've come out of this in some ways with a better understanding um it's not perfect no one would say it is perfect but on the other hand it's as good I think as we've been able to make it in the circumstances anyone else want to come in quickly one of you yes thank you um yeah I would say that I definitely have felt tensions um I know that obviously as a barrister perhaps at the stage that we become involved with things is often when things are going wrong and when people really need us to intervene but certainly I've been quite shocked actually at the experiences that I have had and that I've seen my clients having during this period to give one example of a particular case that was really stuck with me was right at the beginning of lockdown um where I had a client who was 12 who was charged a very serious offense and belonged to a household where he had members of his household who were shielding i.e. could not leave the house because of a particular vulnerability and I had an officer in the case trying to make my 12-year-old client get into a taxi to attend a police station to be interviewed under caution and that officer's solution to the fact that that would mean removing him from his family household was that he should therefore find alternative accommodation to shield or to be away from his family while they were shielding for the remainder of that 12-week period and I found that really shocking and again it's that emphasis on trying to get a result get something done seeing the unique situation that we're in with the pandemic and not really considering the fact that Simon has has raised and and Amanda's also touched upon as well as myself that with justice it's not just about following a process it's not just about making sure that you're ticking the box of I have conducted this interview under caution it's about making sure that you're doing it in a in a way which is fair which is accountable which ensures that people are properly engaged in the process I think there really has been particularly the beginning of this I think it's getting a bit better but we're still nowhere near where we ought to be there really has been this attrition of making sure that everybody is fully involved and fully respected in the systems that we're dealing with I use for example the CVP the cloud video platform um the day before yesterday for a hearing and it was quite shocking the fact that we had defendants who were dining into these hearings hearings where they were having court dates set where they were discussing the merits of their case where they were discussing in some cases please on shaking mobile phone footage where they were trying to speak to their lawyers but they were unable to because everybody else was also on the call so you had the prosecutor on the call as well you had everybody else that was waiting for their hearings to be called on I my own client couldn't be reached at Felton because of their lack of technology so we have to do a hearing in his absence so you see this removal of the involvement of key players in the system the removal of participation by defendants and witnesses and so on in hearings and in features which are very important to them so I think they're definitely is a loss of equality and a loss of access that we are experiencing during this pandemic I know that Amanda you wanted to come in too I wonder whether I could add to that the question which we have from let me quickly see um Samuel Castlehouse is also directing one directly to you will the courts continue to use remote hearings when things are back to normal will that assist in addressing the backlog if I if I may just add to the the first question in this way I think um actually both uh Ian and Abby are right and if that's possible and that's to say that there is there is a tension uh undoubtedly between the drive to get criminal justice working and making sure that it's doing it properly I think that has been an issue and continues to be an issue and that's what the rollout of jury trials is trying to address the balance between um a desire on the part of the government and I think it's so a worthy desire frankly for the criminal justice system not to stop along with any other part of the justice system and and there are undoubtedly moments where recalibration must happen so um I think what Abby is describing is moments where they just hasn't been the right balance and the technology actually just isn't there at the moment to enable that and everybody's unfamiliar with it so I think there are a lot of um uh we're we're at the very beginning of a very steep learning curve um just just very much um sorry am I oh no I'll see I was just pushing on the flat of questions is coming in we haven't had any talk about the role of the probation service I thought I would choose Jane Dine's question here for anyone to comment who's got experience in the courts at the moment the backlog of court cases and the criminal courts can it be dealt with in a way that will not lead to impossible operational challenges for the probation service and for prisons who are of course struggling with social distancing does anyone have a comment on the impact of what's going on at the moment in relation to probation yes I I mean I think I probably could if if nobody else wants to go um so I think if I can just roll it back a little bit there's no doubt that the backlog that was already there was there deliberately in order to save money at the end of the system and the the expensive end of the system is when people are sentenced obviously probation is less expensive for the public than prison but both outcomes are very expensive and frankly my view is that the government chose to grow this backlog not so much in order to save money on courts hearings but in order to save money at the end of the process what is happening now is that there is definitely a problem and it's really coming back to things like CBP and access in prison full probation officers to the very limited resources that are available for them to be able to see and have meaningful interaction with people who need their help and who need reports so absolutely there is a problem I think with access for the probation service and and for their services in the pandemic and I think the way forward for that is possibly threefold one is to increase the CBP provisioning in prisons another is to try to put in place measures wherever they may be which ensure social distancing and allow the probation service to liaise with those with whom they have to speak whether it's defendants or people in homes that are coming that they're going to return to and and really to support the probation service in the delivery in and being able to deliver there what they need to in order to push things forward and I suspect actually that there's even more pressure on the probation service because of this desire to try to get through the cases and and I when if I use the word compromise what I mean is to come to a just result that might not be the one that for example the Crown Prosecution Service might have originally been pressing for by way of a contested hearing so I think there are it the probation service has a very significant role to play. Thank you very much let's give a very specific question to Ian what's happened to charging time limits Ian's mooted could we unmute him can you unmute yourself Ian yes thank you yeah um charging time limits charging time limits I think this has been a real pressure for the police in relation let me explain in relation to summary only matters have to be charged within six months um and I think the pandemic has caused the police to have to deal with what will be seen as less serious matters much more quickly rather than worry about the case going over the six month limit in all other cases those that are either way offenses or indictable only offenses we have seen the use of a release under investigation continues we've seen bailing continuing um and no real control over much of that so what I would say is I think we're seeing the police concentrating more on the summary only offenses because they're very conscious of the six month time limit. Thank you very very much um again my prerogative is chair I'm jumping to Emily one still because I think it follows on nicely about the relationship with clients how is the relationship with clients changed and how have you had to adapt to continue to meet the needs of your clients it must be fundamental um we need a solicitors view and a barrisons view wow that's uh sorry the question was climate change was it no it wasn't the question was your relationship with your um clients the relationship with the client I think it's fundamentally important and I do agree with Abby that we we've got to be very careful that we try and ensure that where I've had clients who said I actually want you to go to the police station I want representation at the police station I have gone those cases where I felt they could be dealt with remotely um and the client has been comfortable with that have been dealt with remotely and I've been satisfied that actually no injustice has occurred um I don't feel it has affected the relationship in the main with the client what I do worry about is behind the back door whether the police are saying to clients um well your solicitor won't come to the police station so just get on and deal with the interview we've had some instances of being told that um and our reserve judgment on that but I do I do think there is a risk that that will be happening and has happened um so we need to we need to look at that very very carefully but in the main I think the reality is that everybody has understood the dangers of the pandemic um and has sought to find a way of working around it without really effectively there will always be instances where there are problems in particular cases and I think that's down to the solicitor and down to the representative to ensure that in those particular cases you you ensure there is no injustice it it's not easy to achieve um but I do think it's something that we've all we've all thought about yes um Simon wants to have a word on the relationship with the plant and yes to an extent thank you very thank you very much Nicky to the extent it was touched on by Abby and her earlier remarks um but but obviously hugely important if somebody is going to be going through the justice system that they know that they can talk freely and easily with their legal advisor his sense they consider that actually because of what's happening remote or otherwise that somebody is going to be eavesdropping on what they've been saying to their solicitor I was talking to a court official the other day who said that in a particular remote hearing he could easily overhear what was being said between the barristers the solicitors and the client and effectively you have to say sorry I can hear you but if you get to a stage where it just becomes awkward or difficult or you don't feel at ease of being able to talk to your solicitor barista people are going to clam up and again getting back to feeling that justice hasn't been done if people don't feel that they can really comfortably and easily talk to their legal advisor they're going to stop doing it so again I'm conscious of this I've always sounded like somebody who's always raising warning flags I'm actually a very positive person within the context of this you do need to be very careful that the people who count most in this the ones who are the victims the witnesses and those who are the actual defendants in hearings they're the ones who we should always be talking about thank you Abby's wanting to say something very quickly because we've got hundreds of questions I will I think that for barristers I think that very often we're actually quite reticent to have too much contact with clients outside of hearing traditionally and what this has really done for us is made sure that we have to be very proactive in reaching out to our professional and to our lay clients so I personally um there's obviously differences between how you can interact with clients who are on bail and clients who are in custody but bearing in mind that actually our bail clients are probably the ones who are going to be left waiting the longest before they have resolution of their cases I've now developed a habit of making sure that I'm checking in quite regularly with my bail lay clients and arranging conferences with my instructing solicitor whether that's by zoom skype or even phone call just to update them on what's happening even if it's to say look nothing's happening but the reason nothing's happening is because of the pandemic but we are keeping an eye on your case if you have any concerns just you know make sure that you stay in touch with us doing more written advices than I was before because you have less opportunity to see your clients face to face in the way that you were before just they can see the work that you're doing because the key is just to make sure that they feel that they are being looked after they are being considered and I think actually it's in many ways it's improved my relationships with my professional clients I'm communicating with them much more regularly and staying on top of cases trying to identify cases that we can get listed to try to resolve through offering pleas to less serious matters through just highlighting to clients that actually the evidence is quite strong they might want to consider resolving things and so on but I think it's all about communication and as barristers and just making sure that we are keeping everyone informed and engaged in what's happening and really I'll be really quick sorry Nicky a really good tactic to use is bearing in mind that your client may not get through to a hearing because of technological issues it's just talking them through what the hearing is going to involve beforehand and then getting in the habit of making sure that you can have a phone call with them afterwards just in case they missed anything during the course of the hearing so they feel properly involved and properly informed Monica Stephenson asks what do panel members anticipate will be the most significant long-term changes for criminal justice and I have to say one which has occurred to me is the relationship between solicitor and barrister and client because with this use of technology there's a risk that Abby's turning into a solicitor isn't there who would like to comment on that Simon thank you I think if I just probably the right starting point is what it looked to me and I stress that when it looked to me when I started my close involvement in the whole issue it looked to me that what was happening was that many decisions and many policies were all being adopted and pursued locally whether you're talking about courts or prisons or police stations all locally not in any sense joined up and that the voice of the really important people some of the really important people solicitors and barristers were not being heard at the beginning that it was everybody else would get together and say don't we think it's a great idea uh barrister solicitors this is what we're going to be doing not really any thoughts but this is how it's going to happen that's how it started setting my perception and I hope it's accurate is that shifted quite dramatically and then what you're seeing now are appropriate steps being taken centrally so HM CTS issuing guidance about safety and security that should come centrally and then be checked that it's being that that's applying at locally that solicitors and barristers are now being much more involved in early decision making rather than there's a last to be talked to and the regionalization is working appropriately where those locally are talking with barristers and solicitors about what kind of case is going to be coming forward so I would say that as a long term benefit if what we have is the right things being done centrally and the right things being done locally and barristers solicitors voices together with of course victims witnesses and defendants that through then are being heard right at the beginning and involved in policy making that will be a massive step forward based on my understanding what the situation looked like at the beginning anyone else with a long term implication let's turn to Lorraine girls thoughts two questions one is very closely related the question for Ian in relation to how can we avoid getting back to normal when normal means less than ideal after Ian's silver lining in the police station and the other question which relates to what somebody else has also asked about the involvement of the public in courts lay scrutiners of courtroom practices to ensure proper attention to matters she asks would it be useful to have some kind of equivalent of lay visitors to police stations in the courts since it's more difficult for the public to be in public galleries and so I'm happy to answer the public long so I think actually looking at the question she directed it to me and I think that actually the court system has built into it intrinsically if we take the pandemic situation away the idea that the public are supposed to be involved in the process or they're supposed to we're supposed to have as open a system as possible and I think that what's happened with the pandemic is obviously people are quite concerned about physically attending anywhere because of social distancing what we have seen as a Amanda throughout the best examples really of the thoughtful and best considered ways of dealing with the pandemic have been through jury trials the real emphasis has been on the crown court rather than the magistrates court for example so even built into the new social distancing system for jury trials they considered the fact they needed to have a separate courtroom for the media and for the public to sit in so that's already built in there as well what I would like to see is that sort of thought process with the magistrates court because a lot of these cases that are being directly affected by the pandemic and are being pushed through as Ian has pointed out for example because of the six month custody of the six months charge limit is that is the summary only matters and so actually what we really need to do is to encourage people to attend or to be involved in magistrates court proceedings which traditionally they're not really but there are ways around that if we get more comfortable with technology if we increase the use of video hearings or at least video participation we could see members of the public participating in hearings via videos they could still remain at home but they can log into those hearings in those ways that might be something to think about but certainly as our social distancing measures improve and hopefully we will see members of the public attending I think it's dangerous to try to handpick who from the public you want to attend court I think that the default position should just be if you're the member of the public and you want to attend a hearing you should be able to whilst maintaining the social distancing measures how feasible that will be we'll have to see. Can I just add that I know that the Chief Magistrate because I grew with Abbey about Crown Courts I didn't think there could have been more attention paid to the fact of the need for the press and the public to be able to access these courts and of course the trials that are going on are of great interest to the public at the moment but if one talks about the Magistrates Court they have been absolutely clear that the courts are open to the public and of course there are very significant challenges for social distancing in Magistrates Courts generally but there is in principle nothing to stop an ordinary member of the public from attending I think the question which is do we need somebody else somebody with a particular function to oversee what's going on I'd say not I would say that the participants bought in from every area of the courtroom ought to be in just as good a position in a pandemic as the measures are now set out as they were before to ensure that justice is not only done and seem to be done and if I may adopt Simon's position felt to be done as well because actually that's what our roles all entail and I think what's happened in the very recent past is the learning curve has been so immense that regrettably some things have been lost in the last few weeks but I suspect that they will iron themselves out and that the new norm in terms of oversight of what is important will come back into the frame in in sharper focus thank you um following on from that Catherine Hurd's question to you Amanda is could you give examples of wise and unwise ways that tech solutions could be used to deal with the backlog of cases well if I can if I can just deal with unwise to begin with I would not want to see technology replace face-to-face hearings where they are necessary in the interests of justice and for my part I know that the reason for having three courts in the criminal in the crown court is to ensure that all of the main protagonists that's to say the judge the jury the defendant one barrister or one representative for each side or each party and probably the witness depending on whether or not it's a section 28 or some other kind of remote giving of evidence but in in all other circumstances those are all in the same courtroom I think there's a question to be asked at this point whether all witnesses need to attend court in the normal way unless they have special measures I I suspect that that we that could be rolled out more so that for example someone who had to self-isolate would be able to give their evidence remotely and should to be able to in order for the for the case to go on but that aside I think that it is generally speaking not in the interests of justice that everything is done remotely and that is partly because you lose a lot of the impact of the way that the the case pans out if you're not in the same room and I know that justice just to give an example justice the organization has trialled a number of trials with the jury being remote I mean for my part and and Jodie Blackstone knows this for my part I I just do not think I think they're a very very insignificant and and for my part just completely overwhelming challenges to that being a reality and I can spell this out very quickly if you want me to the first is that in my view that a jury is a is a group of 12 random people who don't know each other who've got no connection and they build that connection in judging a case together in the same place and by watching each other as much as they are watching everybody else and having a collaborative experience and however much we on this call are in the same cyberspace we are not having the same relationship that we would have if we were in the same room and of course certainly and I think I know everyone on this call but even if I didn't I might be able to build a rapport for the purposes of this but not to judge in a criminal trial a serious criminal trial second reason is to do with being able to ensure that the jury is acting properly and I say that with no disrespect to the jury but you simply don't know whether somebody else is in the room you don't know whether they're on their iPad you don't know whether there's a call coming in or somebody else is also watching it you just it's very very hard to police and we know that even in courtrooms juries sometimes do things in contravention of judges directions but at least there is a better chance of being able to discover that and deal with it appropriately and the third thing and I think it's a I think this is actually the slam dunk is that in order to be part of a jury trial as a juror you would have or indeed any protagonist you'd have to have a quiet place in your home without anybody else there and that will be in my view indirectly a way of sifting out people who will be in inverted commas inappropriate for to serve on a jury that cannot be right that kind of social division if you like between people who've got enough space in their home to serve as a juror and not have to look after their children at the same time because they're not at school etc rather than being able to be part of a jury so sorry that I rather went on but I do feel very strongly about that so that is a a bad a bad sign from remote access to justice I'd say thank you there's streams of interesting questions one about whether law students will want to be criminal lawyers sympathy for judges and magistrates and their working conditions but I'm going to choose Emil Ali I think next because I think that's a real testing question could you outline how if extra funding was granted to the criminal justice system would it most effectively be utilized to enable the system to function more effectively during the pandemic where would you throw money somebody gave you more money where would you chuck money at this moment right can I come in here I please do it it certainly should be put into legal aid there it's grossly underfunded at the moment and if you're going to ensure that you have a legacy of lawyers prepared to represent a legal aid lawyer those in custody then I think you have to put money into legal aid that's the first thing I think you also need to look at the court structure I look at places like Lincoln where there can be a traveling of 40 miles each way for somebody to attend court is it any great surprise that in the afternoon in Lincoln magistrates court they have a higher rate of crack trials than anywhere else in the country because there's no public transport back to the outskirts of Lincolnshire after about 4 30 p.m so those sorts of things have an effect upon the trial process but I I do think that we need to be looking at resources in relation to where the courts are located we've got to stop this cutting back of courts and we've got to make sure that the public has access to justice and that means access being able to get to court as well as ensuring that you have a legacy for legal is anyone else want to add to that what I would add is actually it might sound as though Ian's talking about lawyers but actually what he's talking about is clients and witnesses because actually if you don't have people who are willing to represent people because the money is just impossible to live on what you do is you end up with litigants in person and you end up with people who are involved in a more and more difficult criminal justice system it's incredibly complicated to represent yourself properly nowadays because the law is so complex and it's in nobody's interest frankly that that happens that people don't access justice properly because they're incapable for very good reasons of representing themselves well which is why perhaps Tom Hawker Dawson's question is so good I was nervous of um this is a panel of course of lawyers and he says what do you think defendants thoughts on their hearings are at the moment which my first reaction was well we should have a third in this series which is um users voices but then I thought well you lawyers are there to represent the users voices so let us end with Tom's question which is we can't generalize of course we can't though every defendant has a different view but would you like to try and have a final word saying what do you think your clients would have said had they been sitting on your chair I think I think honestly they would say that they feel that they are slightly forgotten and I think that the the new system itself doesn't center them it's something I've said throughout this webinar and I think that although very often we have hearings where we as lawyers and judges and so on think everything has gone smoothly because finally the technology has worked we've been able to set these dates and so on but actually you have a defendant who sat there quite confused and not quite sure who was talking who was saying what and what everything meant you know we don't have those moments where a defendant can pass a note to you and ask for clarification or can pause and have a short conference in the middle of a hearing or short discussion and so I think in reality defendants are likely to believe that they're being slightly left behind but that's where I suppose we have to step in as lawyers and just make sure that we're regularly touching base with our clients that we talk to them immediately before immediately after hearings when we're able to and that we put as much in writing as we can so that they have something to look back at and to reconsider and during the course of hearings and I hope for something that will be continued to work on that they can participate through the CBP to the cloud video platform but the technology isn't quite there I think to make it it doesn't match a face-to-face experience in court. Thank you very much indeed we are inevitably time expired I'm extremely sorry that I haven't you know put all the questions and that we haven't been typing answers as we go but it is impossible I think to talk sensibly and right. James Krav I'm going to save up your question for next week because I think it's totally relevant to our question what's going on in prisons at the moment we do have to end promptly on time so thank you for fantastic questions lots of food for thought I'm going to save them and think about them of course thank you in particular for the panel who some of you have made it clear that you're talking too often on webinars I hope that that wasn't actually true I think it's fantastically useful to keep these debates going I'm very very grateful to all of our panelists and to all of you who've put the time in to attend in today thank you very very much indeed see you next Thursday I hope for our second webinar goodbye thank you thank you