Government backs MP’s bill to extend use of remote hearings


Ryan: BIll enhances public safety

The government has given its “wholehearted support” to a private member’s bill that gives judges the power to hold remote hearing for breaches of some injunctions.

The two-clause Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill is sponsored by Oliver Ryan, who currently sits as an independent MP after being suspended by Labour earlier this year over his membership of a WhatsApp group which contained offensive messages.

It seeks to amend the law so that two categories of case can be heard remotely at the discretion of the judge: breaches of some injunctions and orders in the county and family courts, as well as persistent defaulters on orders to pay council tax.

Speaking during the bill’s committee stage last week, Mr Ryan said: “That ability to appear remotely is especially important, because in many cases, defendants must be physically brought before the courts within 24 hours of their arrest for breach of these civil injunctions.

“Sometimes, that is not possible. Defendants may be arrested out of hours and court facilities may be some distance away, all while the clock, as set out in the current legislation, is running down.”

He argued that the bill “enhances public safety, ensuring that dangerous individuals, in the case of breaches of injunctions, such as gang injunctions, are not released for want of finding a court or judiciary out of court hours”.

Justice minister Sarah Sackman said she gave the bill her “wholehearted support”.

She reassured MPs that the number of hearings in either type of case was not expected to rise.

“These changes will give magistrates and judges in county and family courts greater flexibility and efficiency. The changes will also mean that potentially violent individuals, such as those arrested for breaches of injunctions to protect victims of domestic abuse, can be dealt with quickly and efficiently.”

She described the bill as “modest but perhaps mighty”, adding: “It adds to the flexibility of the ways that courts operate without compromising any of the safeguards of our justice system, and it has our wholehearted backing.”




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog


Change in regulator shouldn’t make AML less of a priority

While SRA fines for AML have been climbing, many in the profession aren’t confident they will get any relief from the FCA, a body used to dealing with a highly regulated industry.


There are 17 million wills waiting to be written

The main reason cited by people who do not have a will was a lack of awareness as to how to arrange one. As a professional community, we seem to be failing to get our message across.


The case for a single legal services regulator: why the current system is failing

From catastrophic firm collapses to endemic compliance failures, the evidence is mounting that the current multi-regulator model is fundamentally broken.


Loading animation