Do virtual hearings help or hinder justice in family cases?

The Scottish Civil Justice Council is an advisory body set up to help keep rules of court up to date with new legal or procedural developments in Scotland’s courts. Scottish Civil Justice Council

In the autumn the Council issued a consultation to stakeholders on ‘Modes of Attendance at court’ – the issues of access to justice and also impact on justice between in-person hearings and remote hearings by Webex or telephone.

Shared Parenting Scotland Chief Executive, Kevin Kane, says, “These are issues which come up frequently in our casework in the context of family proceedings such as contact and residence hearings. We considered this to be an important issue – weighing together two different concepts of access to justice. We sent out two different versions of the consultation questions to get first hand experience, one to party litigants on our database, and the other to clients represented by a solicitor.

It is fair to say there are differing views about the advantages and disadvantages – the balance between convenience and reduced cost of remote hearings on one hand against the importance that a sheriff sees the parties in person on the other. We submitted our overall findings to the SCJC before Christmas and trust these thoughtful voices from the courts will help the Council in its deliberations. Of course, our overriding objective is to help parents resolve their disagreements away from the adversarial court process to focus on the benefits to their children of collaboration rather than conflict.”

Here are the main messages we derived from those who answered the SPS request for views:

1          In-person is generally preferable in contact/residence proceedings where credibility and demeanour may be factors in a sheriff’s decision. Party litigants in particular identified the potential for ‘exclusion’ in the course of a Webex call. Their view of ‘hybrid’ calls was similarly nuanced. There were perceived dangers to the fairness of proceedings if a solicitor or advocate was in the same room as the sheriff, and only the party litigant online. ;

2          Represented parties felt they weren’t really involved in decisions about modes of attendance. There was suspicion that decisions were driven by court/solicitor convenience rather than the full airing of the case. Too much appears to depend on how much a solicitor is willing to explain to their client;

3          There is a need for public information – easy to understand video and/or online plain English step by step guidance to the options that are possible, the decisions that are involved and the practicalities of taking part remotely. Shared Parenting Scotland would be keen to assist in preparing such guidance;

4          There is a calculation that needs to be acknowledged between the costs of in-person proceedings against the apparent convenience of online attendance that takes into account the current problems of solicitor availability for family cases;

5          Technical reliability remains an issue in some courts. The cost of rescheduling, or catching up with a solicitor after a system failure comes at a financial cost to the party if they are not legally aided. It does not seem fair that the party has to pay for system failure.

Additional concerns were:

Privacy – “There is no control of who may be listening in to a webex call”;

Reliability – Courts need to take responsibility for making the systems work. “There should be a person employed by the courts to make sure the IT requirements are met. It was 2024 but felt like 2004.”

Authenticity – “Face to face in court is better. At least a father has a chance of showing their true selves.  That is too important to be done virtually. I think all that is lost virtually.”

Shared Parenting Scotland welcomes the Scottish Civil Justice Council’s consideration of how court attendance is evolving. Fairness, understanding and the ability for parents to be properly heard must remain central, particularly in family cases where outcomes have lifelong implications for children.

While remote options are already established in Scottish courts, they need to be reliable, transparent, and genuinely informed by the views of those who have experienced the system at first hand. Above all, we continue to urge a shift away from adversarial processes and towards early resolution and support for parents, so that children’s wellbeing remains at the heart of every decision.

 

 

5 likes