header-logo header-logo

06 January 2021
Issue: 7915 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Reassurance as infection rates rise

Nobody should go to court unless absolutely necessary, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett has said
Giving his message on the third lockdown, Lord Burnett said: ‘The significant increase in the incidence of COVID-19 coupled with the increase in rates of transmission makes it all the more important that footfall in our courts is kept to a minimum.

‘No participant in legal proceedings should be required by a judge or magistrate to attend court unless it is necessary in the interests of justice. Facilitating remote attendance of all or some of those involved in hearings is the default position in all jurisdictions, whether backed by regulations or not.’

England entered full lockdown on 5 January 2021 for at least seven weeks, amid surging cases. Wales has been in level four restrictions since 20 December 2020.

Lord Burnett said: ‘The position remains that attendance in person where necessary is permitted under the proposed new regulations.

‘This would include jurors, witnesses, and other professionals, who count as key workers. HMCTS will continue to put in place precautionary measures in accordance with Public Health England and Public Health Wales guidelines to minimise risk.

‘In all our jurisdictions work, including jury trials, will continue as it did during the lockdown in November and, after initial hiccups, in the earlier and longer lockdown.’

The Criminal Bar Association, which has been petitioning the senior judiciary regarding unnecessary attendance at court, welcomed the statement. The CBA has called for more Nightingale courts to address the backlog of cases.

In his Monday Message this week, prior to the lockdown announcement, CBA chair James Mulholland QC welcomed HM Courts and Tribunals Services’ agreement to publish a list of all criminal courts where users have subsequently tested positive for coronavirus. Mulholland also raised the issue of rates of infection among suspects, pointing out that ‘while court rooms are generally large and well-ventilated, cell areas are not.

‘We need to learn important lessons from the discharge of individuals from hospitals into care homes. Additionally, mass testing needs to be considered in situations where individuals in a particular court have tested positive for the virus.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll