Hmm! At the risk of metaphorical bricks through my window:
1. There had been throughout my 47 practising years a serious element of Crown Court staff viewing their ownership and secretiveness as proof to them and as they imagined even lawyers and those working towards greater transparency of their own supremacy and power.
2. THIS- I stress- applied (and applies) to an obstructive but embedded minority, but then one such is one too many.
3. It does mean however that this is indeed still about culture and- more bricks awaited- too often judges for a quiet life have let those particular human tails wag the dog of judicial ownership of court proceedings.
4. I might as well continue in this vein and add that in my own (beloved) Victoria Law Courts and the (maddening) Upper Newton Street Crown Court access conversions in the interests of security and of introducing a distorting blanket of sound technology in the former (Courts 5 and 6 and 7 and 8) neither the Defendant NOR anyone in the public gallery could hear the proceedings. So much for open justice and that was -probably is- the nursery slope state of play.
Over all of that I kept writing, raising the issue in court user meetings, grudgingly some “sticking plaster” would be applied, only for it, again metaphorically speaking to fall off. For all of that I was regarded as a nuisance and I am afraid many of my colleagues just sat on their hands.
In the Annexe two of the makeshift new Courts carved out of one large Court had sound and other technological systems SO loud and distorting that those like me qua advocate and those in the public gallery AND those INTHE DOCK could only hear intermittently. Furthermore with the docks inset into the rear of those Courts no one in the public gallery could so much as SEE the Defendants. Open justice?
We must call these things out whenever we encounter them since otherwise we SHARE the responsibility for these and similar shortcomings.
In this context I also should add that I bring to this appraisal the fact that I have been deafened all my life and therefore more challenged and aware of suchlike. I eventually got people to listen to me but then time would pass and we would be back to where we were.
An obsession for me? You bet! But then I am obsessed also about open justice for all and I am against the unconscious though nonetheless unacceptable discrimination entailed here. Oh, and in the Courts mentioned above the hearing loop merely distorted further all voices and permitted the entire Court to hear what the Judge was saying-supposedly sotto voce to higher/his associate.
all I am saying is that constant awareness and vigilance and regular doses of discrimination training are of the essence if we are ever to progress.
(1) Daniel Cloake's comment is such an essential but simple point: 'Most open justice issues, especially ones which it’s anticipated can be dealt with over the phone, should be solved by having an easy-to-read document clearly setting out the rights of the public that can be accessed by all.'
(2) Next judges need to ask why people might want to watch and listen to cases. What are judges doing to promote their brand?
(5) And finally, there are larger number than there should be of judges who just do not know the law or forget facts explained to them (see eg my Who judges the judges? https://dburrows.substack.com/p/who-judges-the-judges and following).There are KCs who publish stuff which is plainly wrong.
A lot has been written about a junior barrister who misused AI. One or two judges and a KC or two need to straighten up their acts and make sure they check their stuff.
And another thing. How long before the nothing-is-private element attack the privacy of arbitrations?
Your link to the case from 2000 is not working. You couldn’t make it up!
At about that time in Croydon there were signs in the waiting rooms saying YOU DO NOT HAVE TO TALK TO THE MEDIA - and very rightly so.
Oh, and if any non-party is to be given copies of documents they must pay a standard fee per page - up front.
Anyone disagree?
The Bailii link works for me but I have changed it to the pdf version.
Got it thanks. And I remember the case!
Hmm! At the risk of metaphorical bricks through my window:
1. There had been throughout my 47 practising years a serious element of Crown Court staff viewing their ownership and secretiveness as proof to them and as they imagined even lawyers and those working towards greater transparency of their own supremacy and power.
2. THIS- I stress- applied (and applies) to an obstructive but embedded minority, but then one such is one too many.
3. It does mean however that this is indeed still about culture and- more bricks awaited- too often judges for a quiet life have let those particular human tails wag the dog of judicial ownership of court proceedings.
4. I might as well continue in this vein and add that in my own (beloved) Victoria Law Courts and the (maddening) Upper Newton Street Crown Court access conversions in the interests of security and of introducing a distorting blanket of sound technology in the former (Courts 5 and 6 and 7 and 8) neither the Defendant NOR anyone in the public gallery could hear the proceedings. So much for open justice and that was -probably is- the nursery slope state of play.
Over all of that I kept writing, raising the issue in court user meetings, grudgingly some “sticking plaster” would be applied, only for it, again metaphorically speaking to fall off. For all of that I was regarded as a nuisance and I am afraid many of my colleagues just sat on their hands.
In the Annexe two of the makeshift new Courts carved out of one large Court had sound and other technological systems SO loud and distorting that those like me qua advocate and those in the public gallery AND those INTHE DOCK could only hear intermittently. Furthermore with the docks inset into the rear of those Courts no one in the public gallery could so much as SEE the Defendants. Open justice?
We must call these things out whenever we encounter them since otherwise we SHARE the responsibility for these and similar shortcomings.
In this context I also should add that I bring to this appraisal the fact that I have been deafened all my life and therefore more challenged and aware of suchlike. I eventually got people to listen to me but then time would pass and we would be back to where we were.
An obsession for me? You bet! But then I am obsessed also about open justice for all and I am against the unconscious though nonetheless unacceptable discrimination entailed here. Oh, and in the Courts mentioned above the hearing loop merely distorted further all voices and permitted the entire Court to hear what the Judge was saying-supposedly sotto voce to higher/his associate.
all I am saying is that constant awareness and vigilance and regular doses of discrimination training are of the essence if we are ever to progress.
(1) Daniel Cloake's comment is such an essential but simple point: 'Most open justice issues, especially ones which it’s anticipated can be dealt with over the phone, should be solved by having an easy-to-read document clearly setting out the rights of the public that can be accessed by all.'
(2) Next judges need to ask why people might want to watch and listen to cases. What are judges doing to promote their brand?
(3) Clarity in law and what it means could be built into any precedent establishing case (watch my Substack series for this: https://dburrows.substack.com/p/open-justice-clarity-from-judges).
(5) And finally, there are larger number than there should be of judges who just do not know the law or forget facts explained to them (see eg my Who judges the judges? https://dburrows.substack.com/p/who-judges-the-judges and following).There are KCs who publish stuff which is plainly wrong.
A lot has been written about a junior barrister who misused AI. One or two judges and a KC or two need to straighten up their acts and make sure they check their stuff.