Review of Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010

The Act states that audio-visual links (AVL) must not be used for the appearance of a participant in a criminal substantive matter unless a judicial officer permits this (after considering the statutory criteria and whether parties consent).

This means that individual jurors (as participants) could theoretically participate remotely in a trial.

We have identified potential risks associated with remote jurors. If one or more jurors participated remotely from outside the courtroom, it may be difficult to control juror interference. Similarly, jurors may not engage in the same way as they would together in a group. These situations could raise fair trial concerns.

We do not have any evidence that the current settings are creating any problems, as in practice jurors do not participate remotely. Despite this, we want to test whether there is a need to tighten settings if it is ever considered that jurors should be able to participate remotely (e.g., in a pandemic).

Clarify that jurors may only participate remotely together as a group, in exceptional circumstances. This would allow jurors to hear evidence together, decide a verdict together, and deliberate only with one another. Court staff could monitor them and ensure that there is no juror interference. England and Wales introduced a similar provision as a safeguard, for use in exceptional circumstances, such as during a pandemic.