390 THE ADVOCATE
VOL. 80 PART 3 MAY 2022
Civil and Family Matters observed in 2013: “Those of us working within the
system need to remember that it exists to serve the public. That must be the
focus of all reform efforts”.33
Recent studies of virtual courts suggest they offer a unique way to engage
and empower litigants. A notable example was the U.K.-based Virtual
Crown Court experiment, in which the law-reform organization JUSTICE
ran four virtual jury trial simulations during COVID-19.34 Some important
features of this experiment were as follows:
• bespoke videoconferencing technology with clear labels and fixed
positions for all participants (including fixed jury and witness
boxes—see Figure 1) was used to minimize confusion about who
played what role;
• confidential breakout rooms created completely private virtual
rooms for solicitor-client conversations and jury deliberations,
allowing the jury to be removed at the push of a button; and
• “justice hubs” (i.e., community facilities within walking distance of
jurors’ homes) were set up with videoconferencing equipment and
support technicians on-site, allowing remote testimony while mitigating
technical problems caused by differences in software, hardware
and internet connection speed.
The Virtual Crown Court experiment was rated highly by participants,
who were highly satisfied with their ability to see and hear the trials, as well
as with the trials’ perceived fairness. Several participants noted that the
sightlines were actually better than in a traditional courtroom, as “nobody
has their back to you”35 and all users could see the evidence simultaneously
through screen-sharing. Whereas traditional courtroom design leaves lay
users “feeling remote from the proceedings, marginalised or disengaged”,36
videoconferencing engages them more intimately, placing them “literally
and metaphorically at the centre of the proceedings”.37 This democratizing
effect is most notable for in-custody accused persons who would ordinarily
appear from a prisoner’s box, which is known to undermine the presumption
of innocence.38
One of the challenges with this study and others like it has been finding
ways to convey a sense of occasion and maintain the authority of the court.
In the Virtual Crown Court experiment, this was done somewhat successfully
by having judges and lawyers appear in full court dress, including traditional
symbols of authority (such as the coat of arms) in the judge’s
backdrop and on the software interface itself, and by providing transition
moments (such as virtual waiting rooms) where participants were