Click here for ‘Guilty’ plea: Automated convictions legislation in Commons today

MPs to debate proposed online procedures, virtual hearings and much, much more

The Prison and Courts Bill will be getting its first substantial airing in parliament today.

The bill is part of the government’s bid to transform the United Kingdom’s courts system by allowing the Ministry of Justice to save on expensive court buildings and staff, and prospective claimants and defendants to save on legal and court fees. The net effect of the proposed law could well mean less work for lawyers.

The new legislation seeks to introduce a whole host of reforms including the controversial automated online plea and convictions procedure for certain low-level offences (ones which do not carry any potential for a prison sentence). Defendants will be able to both plead guilty and be convicted online.

The process would be very similar to paying a parking ticket, the government explains:

Defendants will be able to log onto an online system and view the evidence against them before entering their plea.

No lawyers or magistrates required.

Other proposals include changes to the civil justice process with more cases being heard online. This derives from the work of Lord Justice Briggs in his ‘Civil Court Structure Review’ published last year. In it, he said he wanted to design a court: “so as to limit the need to have recourse to lawyers.” Briggs emphasised that this would be the court’s “true distinguishing feature”.

The government sees its bill — which gets its second reading in the House of Commons today — as a win for access to justice in the face of legal aid cuts. Lord Chancellor Liz Truss argues the new procedures will:

[C]hange the way the system works. More things will be done online; there will be a more streamlined process. We will need fewer lawyers to help people navigate through the system.

IT guru Professor Richard Susskind — speaking to Legal Cheek’s Katie King and Tom Connelly in a recent Facebook livestream — argued that lawyers will need to evolve in what they do and how they do it. Elsewhere he has said online courts will lead to an:

[I]ncrease in access to justice (a more affordable and user-friendly service) and substantial savings in costs, both for individual litigants as well for the court system.

He says this compares favourably with the system at present which is: “too expensive, takes too long, is barely intelligible to the non-lawyer, and so excludes many potential litigants with credible claims.” In other words, no (expensive) lawyers required.

However, the Bar Council has warned that quality must trump convenience in the government’s quest for online justice reform. Bar Council chairman Andrew Langdon QC said:

Technology has the potential to enhance our system of justice and to provide greater convenience to some court users. If used correctly, it can also save unnecessary expenditure. But we must ensure that convenience and cost do not override other important considerations. Virtual hearings in criminal cases should remain the exception rather than the norm. Criminal proceedings are generally better conducted when the participants are together in one place. It is essential that there is no diminution in the quality of open justice.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek’s careers events, sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub here.

13 Comments

ALawyer

I think this kind of system is acceptable for Paypal but is not suited to something as serious as a criminal conviction even if it is considered “low level”, it is likely to have a detrimental affect on any career prospects. The idea that someone, can elect to plead guilty, potentially without advice from their bedroom, lends false security and trivialises the seriousness of both offending and a criminal record.

(14)(0)
Reply Report comment
Dave Barrister

I would encourage everyone to research this properly and then form a view. If you read this blog, the Prison and Courts Bill’s passage will almost certainly impact your future.

(3)(0)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

I don’t have a problem with parking tickets, speeding offences, and other very low level offences that would result in a fine of less than £100 being disposed of in this way.

You should always have the option to ‘have your day in court’ though.

(3)(0)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

This appears to be yet another way for the most venerable people to be refused help. Those with mental health issues or learning disabilities rely on lawyers to speak on their behalf. this system would remove this protection and permit guilty pleas from individuals who do not understand the charges brought against them.

(6)(0)
Reply Report comment
A Barrister

Anything resulting in a conviction for a recordable offence should not be dealt with as if it were a parking ticket.

Dangerous precedent.

(7)(0)
Reply Report comment
ALawyer

What happened to the inquisitorial system or indeed justice not only being done but being seen to be done. In addition if the system does not require magistrates for sentencing, who does the sentencing? “No lawyers or magistrates required” – this means no judges essentially, so civil servants do the judging or is this default justice, plead guilty to X sentenced to Y? This would also do away with mitigating circumstances.

(3)(0)
Reply Report comment
Ciaran Goggins

In a nation where Truss doesn’t want cross examination – do you know what fools you look when compared to functioning democracies?

(0)(1)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

HAVE YOU SEEN CCMS????? THESE PEOPLE CANT WEBSITE THEIR WAY OUT OF A PAPER BAG. THE VERY IDEA THAT THIS COULD BECOME A REALITY IS LAUGHABLE

(0)(0)
Reply Report comment

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.