Jack Straw was at Camberwell magistrates court in London last week to see a virtual court in operation. The word virtual is a misnomer; it doesn't mean the court is a cyber make-believe resembling a real court. On the contrary, there is nothing virtual about it. The justice secretary saw a real court in full action, with only one thing missing. The dock was empty. There was, however, a 42-inch plasma screen, and on it was the real accused, who was in fact at the Charing Cross police station a couple of miles from the courthouse, connected to it by a secure video link.
Straw was witnessing a pilot scheme, the beginning of what could become the norm in thousands of magistrates court cases – a defendant pleading guilty to a crime, and being sentenced for it, without having to attend court. Virtual courts, he said, "have the potential to transform how the justice system deals with crimes. They are vital in the government's drive to deliver swift justice", and "the faster we get justice done, the more we improve public confidence in the public system as a whole".
Up to a point. But isn't there another element, the rather important one of reaching the right result? It's all very well to have the justice procedure speeding along, but not if it means that injustice is done to individuals caught up in the rush.
The statistics will be impressive, showing more and more cases dealt with in less and less time. But how many innocent people will find themselves with a criminal record?
The new quickie system will take up far less police time and reduce the risk of the defendant not turning up for trial. In all sorts of other ways, a lot of money will be saved. In one of the first cases under the pilot, a man charged with drink-driving appeared in court via the video link four hours later, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced after a 20-minute hearing.
But there are still questions to be asked. Defendants in this pilot scheme have to give their consent to be handled under the quickie procedure; but soon the coroners and justice bill, currently passing through parliament, will remove that choice. That would not be fair.
An accused, even if pleading guilty, ought to be entitled to face-to-face contact with the magistrate sentencing him. Appearing on a screen is not the same. There's also no guarantee that an accused's lawyers will be physically with him or her at the trial; instead of being at the police station, the lawyer can choose to be in the courtroom – hardly the best place for communicating with their client.
The main source of worry about virtual courts is that they will persuade innocent people charged with a crime to make hasty decisions to plead guilty "to get it over with". Faced with the choice of an instant trial by video, or pleading not guilty and initiating a possibly lengthy and traumatic trial process, the temptation to go down the so-called virtual route will be strong. Quick and cheap justice is not always justice.