Virtual courts, ‘no bed of roses’

VIRTUAL court at the Maximum Security Prison is “no bed of roses” one defence attorney has said. Defence attorney Amerelle Francis put her complaints on the record on Wednesday at the start of the day’s proceedings of the virtual judge-alone trial being heard by Justice Lisa Ramsumair-Hinds.

Francis said there were “issues and trying circumstances “at the MSP’s virtual facilities. The virtual facilities to accommodate virtual court hearings are contained in converted shipping containers. “We are confined to a container which becomes smaller in size because we’ve put in a small table and extra chairs.”

When it rains, it leaks periodically, according to the attorney. Francis said there is no room for private conversations with clients.

“We understand the situation and we are doing this because we recognise justice must be done. But, by no means is MSP a bed of roses,” Francis said, adding she did not want her client to feel the present situation caused by covid19 restrictions negatively impacts his representation.

Francis is representing Carlos Cezair who is charged with the murder of Elvis Emile in Sangre Grande on June 7, 2008. Ramsumair-Hinds reminded Francis she was able to represent her client from her law chambers while her client remained at the MSP as has been done for other cases.

She also said whenever privacy was required, there were alternatives, including one-on-one virtual sessions with remanded prisoners via Zoom or other technology. “It is not necessary for you to be in the facility, but there are options,” the judge said.

New practice directions for the operations of court came into effect on Tuesday and provides for most court-related business to continue by electronic means.

Only those likely to be compromised by a virtual hearing will be conducted in person. Prisoners will also not be required to attend court in person, unless it is unavoidable.

The court emergency covid19 measures will continue until it is changed by the Chief Justice. It also encouraged the use of feasible and workable alternatives to in-person activities at the court.

Most hearings will continue to be conducted by electronic means and those that will be held virtually are case management conferences; directions hearings; status hearings; cause list hearings; pretrial reviews; intake hearings; bail applications; the delivery of judgments; and applications, including those for the detention of cash or any other deemed appropriate by a judge for hearing by electronic means.

The practice direction notes that only cases which, in the interest of justice, would be compromised by an electronic hearing will be held in person but it urged that domestic violence matters, family matters, petty civil matters and urgent applications should be heard virtually, as far as possible, to keep with the need to maintain appropriate health and safety requirements.

Matters to be heard in person will be held at pre-scheduled times and will be scheduled for the taking of evidence of a witness; having a jury present; having anyone appear in person because it is impossible for them to appear otherwise; or to produce physical evidence in court which cannot be produced otherwise.

“The general rule is that judges, judicial officers and attorneys-at-law will deal with all matters by electronic means,” the directions advised. It also reminded judges and attorneys that every time a prisoner is brought to court, there is a mandatory quarantine period of 14 days when they return to the prison.

When a judge decides that a jury trial should be held in person, the judge, after consulting with Judiciary personnel, will have to identify the location of the jury and the accused during the hearing and any decision made must take into account the room capacity standards set by the Judiciary and ensure maintenance of the national health and safety requirements.

“During this period, prisoners should not be required to attend court in person except in circumstances which render it unavoidable,” the direction said.