Guidance

HMCTS Remote Participation Approach

Published 9 May 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

1. Ambition

Our aim is to support people to access justice when they need it and improve how they do so through our courts and tribunals services. We will work with partners across the justice system, finding ways to continuously improve how we enhance our services, and provide our people with the tools and resources they need to carry out their roles.

As part of delivering this work, we will continue to support, enable and deliver the provision for people to participate and observe in court and tribunal hearings remotely, without the need to be physically present in the same room as other participants. By enabling hearings to be observed remotely too, we are upholding the principle of open justice.

The decision to hold a hearing remotely or to enable participants to attend remotely is a judicial one. Judges make this decision on a hearing-by-hearing basis, and consider whether joining a hearing remotely is in the interests of justice. We support the judiciary to conduct any hearing with their preferred combination of remote and physically present participants, so that the administration of justice is not constrained by physical location.

Enabling remote participation is important to providing more inclusive access to justice, whilst securing a range of benefits for public and professional court or tribunal users, as well as using our estate more efficiently and driving wider government priorities such as our sustainability goals.

2. Approach

Our approach is to primarily focus on maximising the benefits of remote hearings. This acknowledges that remote participation will not be suitable in all hearings, nor for all users - not least those who do not have access to digital equipment, digital skills or access such as broadband.

However, where remote participation is suitable, it can deliver a range of benefits for the justice system, public and professional court and tribunal users, and our justice partners. Benefits offered by remote participation include:

• providing a secure and accessible alternative to attending a hearing in person, especially for vulnerable participants who may prefer not, or be unable, to attend in person
• helping to build flexibility and resilience, allowing hearings to continue when they might have been adjourned due to unforeseen circumstances, such as illness, adverse weather, building closures or travel issues
• reducing the need for costly and lengthy transfer of prisoners
• increasing flexibility and economic savings for legal professionals, interpreters, and other hearing participants due to reduced travel time

3. Context

We committed to upgrading courts and tribunals technology by increasing the capacity for wholly remote hearings and hybrid hearings as part of the our Reform Programme. We have modernised the justice system by optimising the courts and tribunals estate and strengthening our technological capability to deliver remote participation.

The rapid expansion of remote participation in response to the pandemic radically transformed how courts and tribunals function, speeding up changes that had been planned for several years. This unprecedented growth in remote participation established it as an instrumental tool in enabling the delivery of justice and demonstrated its value to users across the justice system.

3.1 Where we are now

We believe that the current landscape presents an ideal opportunity to establish a remote participation approach that outlines the rationale for hearing cases in this way and the benefits we intend to deliver for the justice system. We also want to set out how we will use remote hearings as a tool to fulfil our strategic priorities, and that of the Ministry of Justice and wider government.

3.2 Analysis of the current landscape

Overall remote participation has increased compared to pre-pandemic usage:

• for example, in January 2020, 10% of all Crown Court hearings involved remote participation. At the height of the pandemic in May 2020 this rose to 69%. Since pandemic restrictions were subsequently removed and unfettered access to courts and tribunals became routine, usage has declined.

• this can be seen in data produced by a project which analysed daily Crown Court lists to determine the proportion of hearings that utilised remote participation between February 2023 and February 2024. Results indicated the use of remote participation has increased by 14% compared to 2020, with an average of 24% of hearings involving remote participation. These findings show that whilst the number of hearings involving remote participation has declined, they have settled at a level that remains significantly higher than pre-pandemic numbers.

• there is substantial support for the continued use of remote participation among legal professionals. A report published by the Bar Council found that 38% of barristers stated that the current frequency of remote hearings is appropriate, whereas 49% believed remote hearings should be used more frequently. These developments indicate that remote participation is now an integrated feature in the justice system.

3.3 Reliable data capture on remote hearings:

• we do not routinely collect consistent data cross jurisdictions about the method of hearing for cases

• improving our data collection capability will allow us to gather new insights into how remote hearings are performing, strengthening our evidence-led approach to service improvement

• improving data collection and publishing data about remote hearings about is an important part of meeting recommendations in the Bar Council’s report on remote participation

3.4 Remote participation is applied inconsistently throughout England and Wales which is reflected by:

• significant variation in how different jurisdictions, regions, and courts choose to use remote participation. For example, in February 2024 in the Crown Court, the London region had 33% of hearings take place with remote participation, whereas in Wales this was only 9%.

• analysis showing tribunals have demonstrated a significant uptake in the use of remote hearings, relative to our understanding of other jurisdictions, with certain tribunals holding the majority of their hearings remotely.

It is important to note that these judicial decisions could have been influenced by a range of factors, including the technological capacity at the court or tribunal, the administrative support available and whether users might lack a sufficient broadband connection or digital skills. Additionally, it is worth noting we do not have reliable data which provides insight into these trends.

Note this analysis is focused on the Crown Court because that is where we have our most robust data. Civil, Family and Tribunals are also actively using remote participation, but we have more limited data on their usage.

The challenges presented by the current remote participation landscape could be addressed with a clearer and more strategic use of remote hearings to maximise the benefits for our justice partners, wider government, and our users.

4. Conclusion

Remote participation widens our ability to provide access to justice for our users, from enabling defendants to attend their hearing while in custody to vulnerable witnesses giving evidence from a more comfortable environment. This capability is central to our estate and our workforce being flexible and resilient, as seen throughout the pandemic, particularly as we continue to address the outstanding caseload.

As we move towards a more strategic use of remote hearings to support wider government objectives around maximising estate capacity, supporting our justice partners in HM Prison and Probation Service and beyond, we commit to exploring how we measure progress in this area.

First, we aim to implement a remote participation platform in the criminal, civil, family and tribunal jurisdictions which will enable a more consistent experience for remote hearings, enhance our data collection capability, and unlock further benefits for our users.

Second, we intend to commission academic research into remote hearings, with the goal of gathering insights that will help us:

• produce evidence-based documentation to assist the judiciary in making informed decisions as to whether a remote hearing is suitable and not suitable.
• help courts, tribunals and judges to consider the types of users for which remote hearings may be suitable or not suitable, including factors such as public user preference, access to counsel or support, participation in the hearing, health/capacity, and accessibility
• explore the variations in types of hearings or cases, such as length, complexity (forms of evidence, legal complexity, severity/seriousness, number of participants, complexity due to nature and needs of the participants), that may affect the suitability for remote hearings
• investigate the impact of digital disadvantage on remote hearings, including lack of skills, internet connection or hardware.

5. Next steps

With a better understanding of remote hearings, enriched by robust quantitative and qualitative data, we will be able to set guidelines for how we should support the judiciary in delivering remote hearings. We will consider what we can do next to ensure a consistent experience for remote hearings to ensure accessibility, access to justice, and due process. We will explore whether we should ensure that every court and tribunal building should have the appropriate technology to enable remote participation (increasing from 70% to 100%). Once we understand which hearing types are most compatible with remote participation, we can support the judiciary to better assess which case types can be held remotely by default.