header-logo header-logo

14 April 2021
Issue: 7928 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Criminal , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Nightingale courts or remote juries?

Lawyers have called for more Nightingale courts and judicial sitting days to tackle the backlog of cases and urged caution on plans for remote jury trials.

Ministers are considering legislation to give criminal courts more discretionary powers to use live links, after the Coronavirus Act 2020 expires next March. According to the impact assessment document for the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, this could ‘make it possible in the future, for example, for a jury, sitting collectively, to participate in a trial by “live video link” where the court considered this appropriate. Remote participation by a jury would only be considered at the discretion of the trial judge where there is good and sufficient reason to operate in this way’.

In Scotland, remote jury trials have been taking place since September 2020 with jurors watching proceedings from socially distanced seats in a cinema.

Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce said: ‘There would need to be clear evidence of how juries sitting remotely will help to increase capacity to clear the backlogs before such a change is considered.

‘Additionally, more work needs to be done to fully understand the impact remote hearings have on justice outcomes, as the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts and Tribunals Service have acknowledged. Juries being able to sit remotely would also be reliant on the widespread availability of high-quality and extremely reliable technology.

‘Maximising existing court capacity and judicial sitting days and boosting capacity through many more Nightingale courts is the best way of increasing the amount of jury trials that can take place safely.’

Criminal Bar Association chair James Mulholland QC, in this week’s Monday Message for members, said: ‘The focus for the next few months must continue to be the relentless pursuit of more court space for more in person jury trials. It is as simple as that.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll