Inaudible in-person proceedings: A practical barrier to transparency and open justice

By Tim Sugden, 21st February 2024

It’s not open justice if you can’t hear what is being said in the courtroom.  

My experience is that this is a recurrent problem in magistrates’ courts – and now I’ve found the same problem in the Court of Protection as well.

My experiences in magistrates’ courts with Courtwatch London

Last year, after I noticed in a local newsletter that they were seeking volunteers, I became involved with the open justice project: Transform Justice – CourtWatch London

In all, from August to December I observed nearly 40 hearings (all in person) in a local magistrates’ court. A common theme that all volunteers expressed in our regular support meetings that they had experienced, across the three courthouses involved and in every courtroom and with every District Judge or panel of magistrates presiding, was the difficulty in hearing, and thereby being able to follow, the proceedings. In particular, the CPS and defence counsel were very hard to hear, but sometimes also too the magistrates/judges, witnesses, and other court participants.

The only occasion in all those hearings I observed when the microphones and speakers were switched on, came when an interpreter, standing in the dock with the defendant right at the back of a court, complained that she could not hear the legal submissions. Immediately the system was switched on, and the case proceeded without issue – but it left me wondering how many other defendants in the past have stood there wondering what those in front of them were saying about them.

I and other observers noticed in other courtrooms defendants in the dock and their family members and supporters sitting like us in the public gallery, also unsure and confused about what was being said. 

I am hopeful that one of the recommendations to be included in the project’s Courtwatch report, due out this spring, will be that the sound systems in each court room are by default switched on, for every case and every hearing – not just when someone might be sufficiently assertive, in such an intimidating environment, to request that they are.

My experiences in the Court of Protection

So, I was interested to discover whether inaudibility would be a similar issue in COP hearings, especially those also held in-person – although I have since learnt that it is a particular problem for  hybrid hearings (see “The silent courtroom”).

To date I have attended four in-person hearings:

• Friday 9^th February COP 13925655 HHJ Hilder sitting in court 24 at First Avenue House
• Friday 9^th February COP 13745918 HHJ Hilder sitting in court 24 at First Avenue House
• Wednesday 14^th February COP 14186802 HHJ Batten sitting in court 22 at First Avenue House
• Monday 19^th February COP 13059883 Judd J sitting in court 48 at the Royal Courts of Justice

As regards audibility at these hearings, it naturally helped that (at First Avenue House) they were held in smaller rooms than magistrates’ courts, with shorter distances between the sitting judge and the public gallery, so hearing what s/he says has not so far been, for me, a problem. The one hearing (COP 13059883) I attended at the Royal Courts of Justice was, by contrast, in a much larger room, and it was consequently harder to follow the discussion in any depth or detail, or to make out exactly what the presiding judge was saying at times.

However, even on the three occasions in the First Avenue House courtrooms, what counsel in the front row said was difficult to hear, adding to the other obstacles already present (having little or no background information on the case being heard, the use of legal terminology without explanation, etc). Too often, as had happened every time in the magistrates’ courts, it seemed to become simply a two-way conversation that counsel and the judge were having, with little consideration for the need for others in the room to be able to follow what they were saying. 

These difficulties highlight once more (as I see has been mentioned in previous blogs) the vital importance of having – in line with the former Vice President’s Guidance – a clear and coherent opening summary at the commencement of every hearing. As regards the two hearings I observed on 9th February: in the first, one was given, but in the second, an hour later before the same judge, one was not. No reason for this inconsistency was apparent or was offered.

In one hearing (COP 13925655), one person (it was not explained who she was) had joined remotely, and she complained very early on about not being able to hear – at which the judge turned to the screen and explained what she had just said. Then, however, the hearing just continued without anyone checking (as far as I could tell) that the remote participant could hear and follow the discussion. I felt very tempted to pipe up and say “turn on the mikes!” – but didn’t of course.

But maybe it would be a good idea for the suggestion mentioned above regarding magistrates’ courts, that the microphones and speakers be automatically switched on, to also be considered for adoption in Court of Protection hearings, in all courtrooms at whichever venue. I cannot see an argument against doing so, and it would surely help facilitate the process of transparency and open justice, including for family members and others sitting behind the front row of counsel.

Tim Sugden retired in 2022, after a career in children’s services, to devote his time to providing accommodation and support to refugees from Ukraine.