Credit: Shutterstock.com

It is no secret that the Family Court has been under immense pressure in recent years. As recently as December 2019, Sir Andrew McFarlane, the President of the Family Division, in a View From the President's Chamber headed "The unremitting pressure of work in the Family Court" described those involved in the system as "running flat out up a down escalator which, despite our efforts, is outpacing us".

This was, of course, before we were struck by the global health crisis.

Typically, and unsurprisingly given the nature of its work and the corrosive impact of delay on children's lives, the Family Court has been at the very forefront of ensuring hearings remain effective. From the very early days of lockdown, directions hearings were being convened via telephone and complex fact-findings via videoconferencing software.

There have already been a number of decisions from the Court of Appeal and the High Court addressing whether, and in what circumstances, it is just, fair and appropriate for a hearing to be convened remotely. Guidance (or documents which are, explicitly, not guidance) continues to be disseminated at a somewhat discombobulating rate.

Inevitably, whilst many are evangelical about remote working, there are a significant number of important voices that plead caution. Lay parties have poignantly described how remote hearings "felt like a second-best option" and an anonymous judge has written about the impact it has had on their ability to conduct hearings "with empathy, fairness, understanding and compassion".

The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory conducted, at Sir Andrew McFarlane's request, a rapid review into remote hearings in the family justice system, resulting in an impressive series of recommendations as to best practice and suggestions about which cases should be heard remotely. Debates on Twitter (and elsewhere) continue to rage as to the effectiveness of witnesses being cross-examined and their evidence being assessed within the four corners of a computer screen.

Whilst some courts are already being re-opened and personal attendance required, it will be a long time before we are able to work at the maximum capacity that was already, manifestly insufficient, pre-COVID 19. Undoubtedly, technology will continue to play a role in ensuring decisions are made for those tied up in the system, but determining which hearings should be convened remotely and how they ought to proceed is far from straightforward.

It is easy to imagine why short directions hearings might continue via telephone or video especially since the alternative would involve large numbers traipsing in and out of court buildings. Similarly, cases which can be adjudicated on the basis of submissions only may well be suitable for remote hearings, especially where all parties are represented. That said, the Court of Appeal has recently set out the excruciating details of a telephone hearing conducted on the basis of submissions only, which resulted in a child being removed from his carer when he should not have been.

For some, participating in a hearing remotely might be more desirable than attending court. There was already provision for vulnerable individuals to participate remotely pre-COVID 19, and it is easy to see why some victims of domestic abuse might want to participate remotely, avoiding any chance of running into their abuser at court. Others will no doubt feel uncomfortable about their home, their "safe place", being invaded by the very fact of the proceedings.

More generally, a real benefit of remote working has been conducting client conferences on Zoom versus in a crowded court building. It certainly beats battling for one of the few private rooms with broken chairs, or taking whispered instructions from in an overcrowded waiting room whilst being bombarded by a relentless stream of tannoy announcements.

The flipside is that interacting with someone via a screen is just not the same as meeting them in person, something we can all relate to when comparing the face-to-face versus remote interactions we have with our own friends and family.

What is more difficult, unsurprisingly, are cases requiring evidence from lay parties (experts have been giving evidence via video link in family cases for some time now). There are obvious concerns about the practical issues: do they have a private and quiet space available to them? What if their WiFi cuts out at a crucial moment? More fundamentally, will giving evidence remotely impinge on the judge's ability to assess their credibility?

All of this and more will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, as it has been thus far. Without being overly simplistic, the choice is akin to the difference between seeing Les Miserables on the West End versus watching the Anne Hathaway version in your living room. Exactly the same story, experienced entirely differently.

The Family Court must keep moving. It could not afford to slow down before and it certainly cannot afford to do so now. The enthusiasm with which it has embraced technology is typical of its constructive, "can-do" attitude and is a testament to the individuals who work within it.

However, to quote Mrs Justice Pauffley, "justice must not be sacrificed at the altar of speed", and – by extension – at the altar of blind attempts to "get cases done". Technology, especially, videoconferencing, is here to stay, but it must be deployed sensibly and appropriately. It is a tool to ensure the family justice system remains intact and provides prompt and fair solutions for the families it serves. It is not, and will never be, a complete answer to the deluge of cases waiting on the horizon, nor is it the magic solution to running up an escalator going down.

Charlotte Baker is a barrister at 4PB