‘On 6th April 2020 the TIPD came into force. It implements a number of changes and supplements to the Practice Direction – Insolvency Proceedings July 2018. The purpose is to avoid, where possible, parties attending court in person and the likely disruption in proceedings as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.’
Park Square Barristers, 8th April 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘The coronavirus (COVID-19) and the government “lockdown” has bought about interesting times and the Coronavirus Act 20201, in particular ss.53-57 (with Schedules 23-27).’
Thomas More Chambers, 15th April 2020
Source: www.thomasmore.co.uk
‘On 25 March 2020, the Coronavirus Act 2020 (‘the 2020 Act’) was given Royal Assent. Most of its provisions came into force immediately (s. 87). Almost all of them will expire within two years (s. 89). As an additional safeguard, Parliament is required to conduct a review of the legislation every six months (s. 98). The 2020 Act has, at least for the time being, radically changed the appearance of proceedings in the Crown Court: there will now be hearings where neither the parties nor the judge will actually be in court at all.’
6KBW College Hill, 2nd April 2020
Source: blog.6kbw.com
‘Campaign group Justice has run an experimental fully remote jury trial to test whether it could be a fair alternative to face-to-face hearings during the coronavirus lockdown.’
Law Society's Gazette, 20th April 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Courts must take care not to “overreact in unprecedented times”, a former director of public prosecutions has said, amid concerns that lengthy sentences being imposed during the coronavirus crisis could be excessive.’
The Guardian, 19th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘At the turn of the new year it would have been unthinkable to suggest that in just three months the majority of the courts in England and Wales would be closed, that is, at least in the physical sense. In the wake of Covid-19 the Courts have remained open for business however, most of that business is now being conducted in the virtual realm. From online mediations and applications to full-blown witness actions, this is a brave new world for most practitioners, particularly those in civil law, who are used to lugging paper-laden suitcases up and down the various Courts in the land.’
Falcon Chambers, 6th April 2020
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘While in previous weeks the winding up petition list has been adjourned for a minimum of three months, this week’s list was successfully conducted by Skype. This article discusses how the hearings worked.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 2nd April 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘In light of the COVID-19 outbreak and the protective measures which the UK government has introduced, litigators across the country are asking one burning question: will hearings go ahead, and if so how?’
Blackstone Chambers, 18th March 2020
‘The first judgment has now been reported on the effect of COVID-19 on a forthcoming trial. In Re One Blackfriars Ltd, Hyde v. Nygate [2020] EWHC 845(Ch), John Kimbell QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court judge, refused to adjourn a trial due to start in June but ruled that it should proceed remotely by video-link.’
4 New Square, 14th April 2020
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘All judges and leadership judges need to recognise that doing as much as possible remotely “does not mean, and cannot mean, trying to do everything remotely”, there senior members of the judiciary have warned.’
Local Government Lawyer, 15th April 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘It is a brave new world. The lockdown brought about by the coronavirus crisis is forcing the hand of our infamously old-fashioned profession to adapt quickly or lose myriad court dates; leaving our clients without satisfactory and timely resolutions to their disputes.’
3PB, 14th April 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘Covid 19: the current situation is so fast moving that anything written will almost inevitably be out of date by the time it is typed. However, following the effective “lock down” from 8.30pm on 23 March 2020 it may be that there are fewer further changes until restrictions can be eased, and it is useful to reflect on the effect so far.’
6KBW College Hill, 30th March 2020
Source: blog.6kbw.com
‘A broad experience is building up among advocates with the use of remote hearings. Although many courts are still using telephone links (and for many litigants who do not have access to more sophisticated technology, this will remain the default medium) the use of video links is becoming more of a normal experience.’
St John's Chambers, 8th April 2020
Source: www.stjohnschambers.co.uk
‘Suspected offenders are set to avoid criminal charges under unprecedented new guidance to ease the burden on the justice system during the coronavirus outbreak.’
The Guardian, 14th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Courts and tribunals have made “remarkable” progress in dealing with remote hearings during the coronavirus crisis, but there are concerns about the behaviour of parties, the senior judiciary has said.’
Litigation Futures, 15th April 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘As one of the measures to prevent the spread of the new coronavirus, courts in major parts of the world are delaying trials and temporarily closing doors. While the move is reasonable in the face of the pandemic, the process could leave some cases in limbo for weeks, if not months. In the criminal context, this could be a huge barrier to access to justice for victims and in securing the rights of the accused. The Chief Justices of various judicial systems have issued guidance to trial courts seeking emergency orders to adjust or suspend court operations in light of the pandemic. In addition to these measures, new AI-based systems may prove helpful during these times and should, where available, be used to secure access to justice.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 9th April 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘There is no question that remote hearings are a good means of ensuring the continued delivery of the decision-making element of the family justice system. It is amazing that we can do it at all and it is great that we can. But doing so in this way is at the cost of our ability properly to connect to one another, and judges like me are compromised in their ability to conduct hearings with the empathy, fairness, understanding and compassion that is rightly valued as an essential element of the Family Court. I appreciate that in order to deliver justice in the time of Covid-19 we must accept compromise. I wanted to share my experiences however, as there have been times that the extent to which I have felt constrained has been uncomfortable, and I worry about the impact on the parties, and the wider goal of delivering justice fairly. Even though huge progress has and will continue to be made in improving remote hearings, we will be working under the effects of Covid-19 for many months yet to come. I am concerned about the responsibility that will continue to fall on judges for deciding what cases are to be heard or not, and for setting the terms of reference for what constitutes a fair hearing in the time of Covid-19.’
Transparency Project, 7th April 2020
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
‘Maintaining access to justice and enabling people to exercise their rights and have effective participation in the legal system has never been more important than now. The judiciary are quickly adapting their ways of working to deliver justice during the coronavirus pandemic.’
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 3rd April 2020
Source: www.judiciary.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024