Since lockdown there has been a lot of discussion about the benefits of video link court hearings, but what about the participants who are not lawyers? Is justice different by video link? What happens when there is no longer a court room? A thread 1/6

Advocacy trainers talk about “creating an event in the mind of your factfinder”. How will an accused person or party to an action view judges and lawyers when there is no court room? How will the public react? Will the decision of the court feel more or less legitimate? 2/6

The Equality and Human Rights Commission reports evidence that video hearings can significantly hinder communication and understanding for people with learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorders and mental health conditions. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/preventing-health-crisis-becoming-justice-crisis">https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-wo... 3/6

In my line of work refusal of an appeal in the High Court of Justiciary is the end of the road. Only a minority of appeal decisions are written up. Judges deliver their decision ex tempore after hearing oral argument. They generally do this in Court 3. Pic @TheEdinBlog 4/6

A lot has happened there (sketch from the 1857 trial of Madeline Smith). You can watch the court in action https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000jcz7.">https://www.bbc.co.uk/programme... What will be the effect of taking away the room itself and moving to a virtual court where judges and lawyers appear from their offices? 5/6

There is something theatrical about a court. The place, the people, the words come together to send a message – hopefully one about justice – to all who watch and participate. How to preserve the majesty of the law when it has become a flickering image on a conference call? 6/6