A "virtual" court

Coronavirus has had an enormous impact on the delivery of justice all across the UK and further afield. It has been possible for some court hearings to be carried out using technology such as ZOOM.

Barristers at 9 St John Street, Manchester have produced a a short film demonstrating the use of remote technology to undertake a mock fast track road traffic liability trial.

"The film has been produced using Zoom but the same exercise was also conducted using Microsoft Teams, which was considered to be just as effective. Both facilitate the screen sharing of documents, such as the trial bundle, and enable the parties to assist the Court with online tools such as Google Earth.

This mock trial is short as it is intended to be illustrative only, but
the participants consider that longer hearings could be conducted in the same way."

It is anticipated that the current COVID-19 measures will continue for the foreseeable future and accordingly there will be listing difficulties for such cases coming to trial.

It is therefore in the interests of litigants, the court service and the legal profession that where trials can fairly be conducted remotely, and the parties are in agreement that this should be the case, this is the preferred course of action.

You can watch this short contested hearing at 9 St John Street 6 April 2020.

My notes:

These cases are dealt with in the County Court where the vast majority of civil cases are dealt with. The claimant in the case is claiming damages and alleges negligence on the part of the other driver.

In these cases it is the claimant that carries the burden of proof. Hence, the claimant has to prove the defendant's negligence and must do that on the civil standard of proof - balance of probablities. In other words, the claimant must show that it was more likely than not that the defendant's driving caused the damage to the claimant's vehicle.

Note that, before the trial, witness statements were prepared and, at the trial, the judge informs the parties that he has read them. There is some other evidence such as a document setting out the repair costs. In some cases there will be expert reports produced under Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules. There are no such reports in this case.

No questions of law are raised for the judge to consider. That is NOT unusual. Many cases are dealt with under entirely settled law. The case is entirely about the FACTS.

In these actions it is sometimes the case that the liability has to be shared between the parties. It is possible for the judge to apportion the liability - e.g. Defendant 80% and claimant 20% (contributory negligence) - see Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. That does not arise in this fictitious case.

Note the question of costs. The costs are usually borne by the losing party to a civil case but the judge has a wide discretion to depart from this rule. Costs can be a very complex area but, in this fictitious case, the matter is straightforward.  For more about Costs see Part 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

The judge gives a short (extempore) judgment there and then. Again, not an unusual thing in straightforward cases. If necessary, a judge would of course take time to consider the matter.

In motoring cases the insurance companies are often in the background. They are "behind" the parties to the actual accident. What will happen to their future premiums and no claims discounts, is another matter !

General links:

The Judiciary has made several announcements concerning the delivery of justice during the pandemic - see HERE and HERE.

On 7 April, The Transparency Project has published an article offering the perspective of a Circuit Judge dealing with family law matters.

18 St John Street - COVID-19 and the Manchester Crown Courts

Rights of Women - Coronavirus - remote hearings in the family court