Dear Colleague,

We offer remand cover for the next week as follows :

As the Croydon bail cases are being listed at Lavender Hill and Bromley as well as Croydon itself, we are experimenting with attendance at both those Courthouses occasionally. We can of Course undertake ‘non Croydon’ cases at those Courts if needed.

CROYDON - BRUCE will be at Croydon all week - BRUCE REID – 07710 024 772 brucerzzz@gmail.com

                   - NICK will also be at Croydon on Monday and Thursday only - NICK ROBINSHAW - 07767 - 657 407 – nickrobinshaw@gmail.com

BROMLEY - Tuesday only – NICK ROBINSHAW - 07767 - 657 407 – nickrobinshaw@gmail.com

LAVENDER HILL – Wednesday only - NICK ROBINSHAW - 07767 - 657 407 – nickrobinshaw@gmail.com

WIMBLEDON – Monday to Friday - ROS OLLESON – 07951 242 693 rolleson@talk21.com

We generally charge £50 per hearing with VAT as appropriate although we reserve the right to charge an additional fee in cases where there is greater difficulty - this will be rare. Trials and S36/39 hearings by arrangement. We can assist with Duty Solicitor swaps/cover subject to LAA Contract Compliance, please contact us individually for each particular Court. Our voicemail message will always confirm whether we are at that Court

Contact us by either email, text or phone but the first two can be delayed, critical when you need us to see an overnight client quickly before they go elsewhere. Telephone contact ensures that we can confirm that we can act and that we can respond as swiftly as needed.

Given the chaos that threatened recently when it seems that remote attendance at Magistrates Court was effectively abolished on Friday afternoon and then reinstated on Sunday night, and the fact that normal ‘snafu’ service will be resumed on 6^th July when the Courts will re-open for bail and backlog cases, it seems worth summing up the position as we see it. Any responses / feedback or guidance through the forthcoming fog will be appreciated. Mail me direct if you don’t want to clutter up the LCCSA box.

Firstly, Custody cases:

The default position must be that the Def is produced in some form. That has always been the law and we don’t want that changed – obvious injustice occurs when they are not produced at all. That was developed in a pre-electronic era, however, and if we can communicate on Zoom/Facebook etc remotely there is an argument to do that, especially when there is danger in attendance for them or the advocate. Problems arise in the efficiency of the technology rather than the principle itself. The link into Croydon gives me a display reminiscent of ‘60’s television with 6 seagulls stacked on the outside aerial.

The law requires a judicial decision made with parties represented in order to permit a remote hearing. The Chief magistrate’s ruling reminds us of this. The potentially nonsensical position of physically going to court to ask for a remote hearing or asking for a remote, having it refused and then getting on a bus, will in most instances be avoided by the Court permitting a remote hearing as a matter of course. The Court will ascertain if the advocate is ‘vulnerable’ but will not pursue medical details – it will be essentially self-certifying. Even if you cant fulfil that then the CM’s comment that financial pressures on Defence firms are a factor on the IOJ test should suffice.

If we don’t take the mickey on this, there should be no problems. We have had no difficulties in our hearings this week doing both Custody Duty and Own Client cases remotely.

However, once an advocate starts going back to a local Court, I can see that Court thinking that the said mickey is indeed being taken on ‘vulnerability’, although the financial argument above would seem to remain.

BUT remember the position pre-virus – when the default position was supposed to be a remote live link every time:

Criminal Practice Directions 3N.6 -

“In deciding whether to require a defendant to attend a first hearing in a magistrates’ court by live link from a police station, the court should take into account any views expressed by the defendant, the terms of any mental health or other medical assessment of the defendant carried out at the police station, and all other relevant information and representations available. No single factor is determinative, but the court must keep in mind the terms of section 57C(6A) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (Use of live link at preliminary hearings where accused is at police station) which provides that ‘A live link direction under this section may not be given unless the court is satisfied that it is not contrary to the interests of justice to give the direction.”

In those days, you would only protest a live link when, say, your client was floridly mentally ill and it would increase their paranoia. It we take that as the starting position, then the economic factor set out above should be decisive in favour of a remote hearing for us, if we wish to make it, after all, in most overnights the Defendant will be remote anyway, being still in the station.

The Coronavirus Act 2020 (Schedule 23) expands the Court’s powers to make a direction in relation to a ‘person’ as opposed to the Defendant. The ‘Interests of Justice’ test remains the same.

Remote hearings, because they depend on folk answering their email – or not in most cases – are abominably long. This why at least one faction in the system wants to get rid of them. We can expect further adjustments to the Guidance as the second wave of infection passes and UK moves into the sunlit uplands in the Autumn…...or a panicked reversal.

Now, bail matters as of the 6^th July. This will be a mess. Trust me.

Bail cases will be difficult to do remotely and I imagine that the Courts will discourage that. Not enough booths for a conference and it will slow down any bail list given the barriers to communication. There has been a lot of concern about risks to the vulnerable advocates turning up for bail cases. My own feeling is that if we can put a ramp up to permit the wheelchair bound to attend Court, then a live link is no different, where an advocate is immune system compromised.

Check the LCCSA forwarded email from HMCTS. Some bail cases will be rerouted from a home court to a different one – Lavender Hill is un-mothballed. Not all of them, just some. And they will mix new stuff on the same day as the antiques and they will tell the Defendants they have been moved but somehow you will be left out of the loop. There is of course no way of seeing tomorrow’s list although in some enlightened parts of the country some courts do this. Not in the Capital.

Scenario 1/ So your RUI’d client’s case is exhumed and he is postal req’d to Lavender Hill. They have of course changed address. Warrant. Executed a week later in Wimbledon where no-one knows anything about it. The Duty solicitor bails them for PSRs in 2 days time. You have a declaration on file and they ring you afterwards to tell you. You file an application. So does the unwitting Duty. You both attend for the PSRs. Unseemly quarreling……….get the picture?

Scenario 2/ So your client’s remand is switched to Bromley. You attend. They of course goes to Croydon where they always go. Warrant. Executed a week later…..See Scenario 1/ above.

The Courts will list 3 cases at 10.00, 3 at 11.00 etc and then the backlog cases similarly staggered in the afternoon.

Years ago in the Pilot Scheme for Virtual Courts at Camberwell, HMCTS listed virtual bail cases at appointed times with the Defendant told to attend Brixton Police station, say, at 11.30 to be linked in. Myself and others on the Working Group advised a degree of caution coupled with giggling disbelief.

I can’t tell you how successful that was.

Because it wasn’t. No defendants turned up, save one who tried it but couldn’t get past the Front Desk at Brixton.

Defendants will drift in at their usual pace giving the often reasonable excuse that they had no idea of where the new Court was and anyway they can’t afford the bus fare on benefits and its rather a long walk from Croydon to Lavender Hill.

Prompt action by the LCCSA and others seems to have shifted HMCTS on remotes and I am sure that the Committee would appreciate warnings of other potential disasters.