This week the Bar Councils of England & Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland, as well as the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland released a statement that declared remote hearings to be a “markedly inferior experience” to in-person hearings.

It comes about as coronavirus restrictions begin to get rolled back across the country and, like any public venue, the courts have to decide what the ‘new normal’ will look like. Hybrid approaches are becoming increasingly popular where the return to normality is infused with lessons learned from remote working during the pandemic. Zoom conferences are not likely to disappear anytime soon and even in my own workplace a return to the office is likely to be part-time with in-person meetings also being broadcast to participants who are not physically present.

The Bar Councils clearly see the past 12 months of virtual hearings as a necessary evil that is to be scrapped as soon as it is feasible to do so. While they accept that remote hearings can still work for short or uncontroversial proceedings, in the vast majority of cases ‘real-life’ hearings are much better because they allow for arguments to be properly developed and evidence to be presented with complete clarity.

The thought process behind this statement is pretty clear and is probably something we have all felt during the pandemic: there is no substitution for human interaction. While virtual hearings are often more convenient and there is limited data collection exploring a negative impact, the anecdotal evidence is hard to ignore.

Our justice system is based on openness and access, and while neither of those principles is eliminated by remote hearings there is a clear sense that they are significantly undermined. Critics will say that the Bar Councils are not moving with the times but in order for a truly fair trial to proceed, each side’s arguments should be presented in real-time, not on a screen, and not with the constant worry that a dodgy WiFi connection or noisy neighbours will make a mockery of the process.