Overview

On May 25th I observed a hearing before Mr Justice Hayden (Vice President of the Court of Protection) in the High Court. And - as with thousands of other public observers throughout the pandemic, I did this from the comfort of my own home! The process of gaining access to a hearing was relatively straightforward - although I needed to know how to go about it (information is available via the Open Justice Court of Protection Project - openjusticecourtofprotection.org). I found details of a hearing I wished to observe at a time I was available via the court's Daily Cause List (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/royal-courts-of-justice-cause-list) and emailed the address given on the list, requesting access as a member of the public. I sent this email at 9.30 on the morning of the hearing, and received an email reply from court staff at 9.37 providing a link to the MS Teams platform where the hearing would take place. As an autistic and physically disabled academic activist and co-director of the Open Justice Court of Protection Project, I am passionate about the principle of Open Justice. This is a particularly key issue in the Court of Protection - whose remit is to make potentially life-changing decisions affecting the lives of disabled people deemed to lack the capacity to make those decisions for themselves. This is a place where disability politics plays out daily, and seeing law in action here is a powerful form of activism.

Transport & Parking

Remote access to the court eliminates the transport and parking challenges that otherwise pose challenges for disabled public observers.

Access

In general, remote access to the court has made a big positive difference to accessibility. Problems I've previously encountered when attending court in-person have been negated - including negotiating public transport, managing security procedures in court buildings etc. However, there are some parts of the process that are potentially still quite inaccessible to people with some categories of impairment: The process of gaining access requires you to locate and check a website to find court listings at short notice (they are only available the evening before a court hearing is due to take place). This would be very challenging to anyone with an impairment that impacted their literacy or ability to navigate websites (I cannot speak to the accessibility of the website - in terms of screen readers, keyboard access etc). The fact that listings are made available the evening before a hearing could be a challenge for people who need to arrange support around their plans to attend and observe. People with requirements of human support are likely to be impacted negatively by the requirement that observers are alone and in a private space to observe hearings. Tensions between the support needs of disabled observers and the privacy of the court are yet to be addressed as far as I know. The prohibition of recording in court is a significant challenge to those of us with impairments that affect our ability to take notes - e.g. physical impairments that impact writing or typing skills, or ability to process spoken language at speed. This is a particular concern given that the very role of the Court of Protection is to make decisions about people with "impairments in the functioning of the mind or brain".

Toilets

Remote access to the court has meant that members of the public are able to observe the court in action from their own home, and therefore access their own toilet facilities. One area of concern though is that (as I have indicated above) observers are expected to be in a private space and alone when observing a court hearing. The status of human support (e.g. PAs or informal carers) in relation to the requirement for privacy is unclear to me, and certainly isn't made clear as part of the general process of accessing the court remotely. Therefore, a person who required support with toileting would be likely to need to at least go through an additional process of confirming access for support workers along with themselves if they wished to observe the court remotely.

Staff

I was really pleased with the support I received on the day of the hearing. The link to the hearing was sent very promptly and communication was clear and accessible. During the hearing when court was cleared so the judge could speak to the person about whom the court was making a decision, emails were sent promptly by court staff to tell me when I could follow the link and join the hearing again. After the hearing, I emailed the court to request a copy of a document I required as an observer (the Transparency Order for the hearing). I am yet to received a reply over a week later. This is of concern as a public observer is expected to agree to be bound by the terms of the Transparency Order, and can be found in contempt of court if they breach it. Access to the document is therefore crucial to ensure the observer knows what they are agreeing to. The language of the Transparency Order is also in complex 'legalese' and is inaccessible from a perspective of literacy impairment. This confirms my impression that court staff are extremely keen to help and to facilitate access to the court, but they are also quite overwhelmed with correspondence, and emails can sometimes be missed.

Anything else you wish to tell us?

The Court of Protection has worked extremely hard throughout the pandemic to ensure that its commitment to transparency and public access is upheld (see this letter from the Vice President at the start of lockdown in 2020 - https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/20200331-Court-of-Protection-Remote-Hearings.pdf). The fact that many hearings have been accessible remotely has meant that they have been 'COVID safe' for observers. It has also made a significant positive difference to the level of general accessibility of the court system for disabled observers and is to be applauded.