Access to Innovation
Access to Capital
Access to Talent
Access to Market
Access to Knowledge
Date Trend snippet:
19 June 2021
Relevance date:
2020, 2021
Type of Treath or Oppertunity
Domain of application
Source of threat
Trends in Security
Trends in Security Information
The HSD Trendmonitor is designed to provide access to relevant content on various subjects in the safety and security domain, to identify relevant developments and to connect knowledge and organisations. The safety and security domain encompasses a vast number of subjects. Four relevant taxonomies (type of threat or opportunity, victim, source of threat and domain of application) have been constructed in order to visualize all of these subjects. The taxonomies and related category descriptions have been carefully composed according to other taxonomies, European and international standards and our own expertise.
In order to identify safety and security related trends, relevant reports and HSD news articles are continuously scanned, analysed and classified by hand according to the four taxonomies. This results in a wide array of observations, which we call ‘Trend Snippets’. Multiple Trend Snippets combined can provide insights into safety and security trends. The size of the circles shows the relative weight of the topic, the filters can be used to further select the most relevant content for you. If you have an addition, question or remark, drop us a line at info@securitydelta.nl.
visible on larger screens only
Please expand your browser window.
Or enjoy this interactive application on your desktop or laptop.
Logistical challenges for courts during the COVID-19 pandemic
Many courts faced major logistical challenges for continuing their work, as hearings tend to require the gathering of significant numbers inside. One way in which this challenge was handled was by moving preliminary proceedings online. Civil cases also moved online. in many countries, there were concerns about the ability to ensure criminal defendants received fair trials in a virtual setting, so the question became the extent to which other proceedings could be held online. As well as changes in technology, new sentencing guidelines were introduced in many jurisdictions as part of the wider move to limit prison overcrowding and COVID-19 transmission.
More source info
Courts and judiciary
Many courts faced major logistical challenges for continuing their work, as hearings tend to require the gathering of
significant numbers inside. For years, courts have been exploring whether some aspects of court cases could be conducted remotely. For example, since 2009 UK magistrate’s (lower) courts have been able to conduct first hearings of criminal cases using a live link between the court and police stations. But the crisis radically accelerated the implementation of these plans.
The immediate focus was in moving preliminary proceedings online. As well as using video facilities, there was a major drive to transact routine business remotely through email petitions or online portals.
Before COVID-19 hit Ireland, six percent of Irish preliminary proceedings were conducted virtually but within six months this has soared to 64 percent.
Civil cases also moved online. Indeed, the UK Supreme Court held its first entirely virtual hearing just one
day after the UK population was told not to leave
their homes except for exercise, essential work or emergencies. And, in this case, the public could watch the case live online. Family court hearings in England and Wales were previously held virtually in just four percent of cases. But within months a virtual hearing was the default service, with exceptions needing clear justifications.
In many countries, there were concerns about the ability to ensure criminal defendants received fair
trials in a virtual setting, so the question became
the extent to which other proceedings (preliminary proceedings, applications for summons or warrants, and bail hearings, for example) could be held online. Arizona was one of at least two US states to conduct jury selection proceedings through video conferencing. In the UK, magistrates started to conduct simple procedures (Single Justice Procedures) from home through video technologies, dealing remotely with offenders who have entered guilt and expressed their willingness to be dealt with online or where there is no plea but cases are found proven.
Texas went even further by conducting a full summary jury trial. And still more radically, in May 2020, Justice Mojisola Dada, a high court judge in Lagos, Nigeria sentenced a man to death for the 2018 killing of 76 year old Mrs Jolasun Okunsanya. Human Rights Watch condemned the sentence of death by hanging as ‘archaic’ but commended the creation of virtual courts as showing commitment to ensuring access to justice.
These last two examples were controversial for many of our interviewees. They were concerned that the current technologies and processes for virtual hearings could significantly affect defendants’ ability to properly engage in the process, and juries’ capacity to make equally accurate assessments. The preference was therefore to work on supporting socially distanced trials as far as possible and plan to reduce growing trial backlogs once COVID-19 restrictions had eased.
However, as a senior official in one country put it, “if this continues... then we may have to start looking at it [virtual jury trials]. We’ll start to get people making habeas corpus appeals [due to long waits on remand for trials]. The balance of risks may change”.
As well as changes in technology, new sentencing guidelines were introduced in many jurisdictions as part of the wider move to limit prison overcrowding and COVID-19 transmission. For example, the Netherlands and Austria postponed sentences of those ‘non-dangerous’ prisoners sentenced to three years or less, and Germany ended the enforcement of any subsidiary penalties for fine defaults. In New Jersey, sentencing provisions were changed in a different
way to facilitate early releases. There, new legislation (enacted on 19 October 2020) allowed men and women serving sentences to receive ‘credits’ for time served during the pandemic – with reductions in their sentences of up to 12 months.
