HMCTS court reform programme
Full video hearings: a process evaluation
This article discusses the process evaluation of the user experience of the recent HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) party-to-state video hearings pilot.
About the author:
Kevin Sadler is deputy chief
executive at HMCTS
Video technology has, of course, been used routinely in our courts for two decades, enabling defendants and witnesses in the criminal system to plead or give evidence via remote link, saving time and cost, and protecting often vulnerable people. Fully video hearings take this one step further by enabling proceedings to take place, with all relevant parties appearing over video rather than in person in a physical courtroom. We have, though, always been clear that whether a hearing is suitable to be heard by video will always be a judicial decision. (See also pages 38 and 39 of this issue.)
User experience of video hearings
Over the last few months, we have been working with members of the judiciary, legal professionals and the public to test how fully video hearings work in a real-life setting. In September, we published the results of the independent process evaluation into this video hearing pilot.* It has been testing user experiences - of the appellant, judges and officials in HM Revenue and Customs - of those participating in a real hearing in the Firsttier Tribunal (Tax Chamber).
Running since March, the tax tribunal pilot has tested the technology and processes that will allow hearings to use video, where it is deemed appropriate by the judiciary. Throughout the pilot, we invited an independent evaluator from the London School of Economics to attend the hearings and record their findings.
What the evaluation tells us
Practical experience
In June, HMCTS chief executive Susan Acland-Hood visited the tax tribunal to view a video hearing pilot, in person, where all parties joined online from separate locations across the country using their own equipment. Susan’s experience illustrates some of the opportunities.
She watched as people based in Manchester, Northern Ireland and the judge, sitting in a courtroom, came together and could be seen and heard clearly, not only by each other but by journalists and members of the public who might have wanted to observe the hearing as they are entitled to do. The hearing had to be adjourned and rescheduled to another date as the judge ruled that an additional participant was required to attend. Conducting this hearing by video meant that considerable time and cost was saved as the parties did not attend the court building only for the proceedings to be adjourned to another date shortly after it began. Susan watched as the judge talked directly to the parties on the video and explained what was to happen next.
I know that Susan was pleased to hear directly from the project team about how the pilots had worked well for other users. For example, she was told about an appellant from Greece, who could participate in their hearing without having to travel to London.
Another appellant had recently become a parent and was very pleased to be able to present their case via video, and so did not have to leave their child for longer than necessary.
What next?
We have already started acting upon most of the report’s recommendations, and will carry out further testing and piloting later this year as the technology continues to develop. The prospect of video hearings gives rise to concerns for some: mainly about making sure they are used in the right way and for the right things, and that is why we are piloting their use and evaluating the impact carefully.