RuleOfLawFrom the outset of the pandemic, barristers and advocates recognised and were supportive of the attenuations to the justice system, which were necessary to ensure that justice could be delivered in the circumstances, which prevailed. In that context, it was accepted that remote hearings were necessary to ensure that system of justice continued to function. These remote hearings and other arrangements were however introduced as part of an emergency response. There was no time to gather any of the necessary stakeholder requirements nor to consult, design, test and implement a reformed system that would ensure these requirements were met in a sustainable manner. Against this background, it should not therefore come as a surprise to find that, for some, although the reforms that have been introduced have successfully avoided justice grinding to a standstill, they have not achieved the necessary or optimal levels of suitability or practicability and have arguably weakened adherence to some core principles of justice. Indeed in several areas the changes introduced have been regressive, limiting and jeopardizing access to justice and introducing impediments to the proper conduct of court proceedings.

This session will examine the benefits and drawbacks of the new ways conducting trails during the pandemic and try and assess their overall impact. Speakers will reflect a variety of different jurisdictions and perspectives