Civil justice system - pandemic response: research findings

6. Health and Education Chamber

Key points

• Following a three-month cessation of hearings at the outset of the pandemic, the HEC was the first Scottish tribunal to move to remote video hearings. This early adoption has resulted in expertise in the use of the videoconferencing platform among professionals, notably clerks, but also tribunal members and legal representatives.
• Parties were generally positive about their experiences of remote video hearings at the HEC and felt they had positive impacts for their wellbeing. Video was generally deemed to be a more suitable mode for many of the children and young people who attend hearings at the HEC compared with appearing in person.
• Despite some early technical issues, video hearings at the HEC have tended to run smoothly, although professionals continue to be concerned about the impact of digital inequalities and exclusion for some parties.
• Legal representatives reported some difficulties in communicating with their clients during hearings which they felt made it harder for them to provide the necessary support.
• Professionals raised some concerns about ensuring the integrity of evidence in remote video hearings: it could be difficult to ensure that witnesses were not accompanied by others and did not have access to information outwith the agreed bundle during the hearing.
• Despite acknowledging the positive impact of remote hearings on efficient time use and work-life balance, professionals reported some negative impacts on their own wellbeing arising from the loss of social interaction and tiredness from spending hours on-screen.
• Parties and professionals were very positive about the level of support for remote hearings in the HEC especially that provided by the clerks.
• The use of electronic documents was generally positively perceived by professionals, although some parties found them difficult to manage.

Overview of HEC cases and the use of remote hearings

The Additional Support Needs (ASN) jurisdiction sits within the Health and Education Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (HEC). The ASN Tribunal decides different types of cases in relation to school education concerning applications (called references) made under the Education (Additional Support for Learning)(Scotland) Act 2004 and claims under the Equality Act 2010. It hears references brought by parents and by young people aged 16 and above appealing decisions of education authorities regarding the provision of educational support and placing requests which decide which school the child or young person shall attend. Since January 2018, children aged between 12 and 15 years who have capacity to make a reference and where their wellbeing will not be adversely affected by doing so have been able to make two types of reference. These are: (1) a reference in relation to a coordinated support plan (CSP); and (2) a reference appealing the education authority's assessment of the child's capacity or wellbeing (which is undertaken when the child seeks to exercise one of the rights available under the 2004 Act).^[127] The Tribunal also decides claims regarding disability discrimination arising in school education under the Equality Act 2010. Claims are made by children, young people and parents/carers. These can be broad in scope and have included exclusions and expulsions from school and the use of restraint and seclusion in schools.

A tribunal consists of one legal member and two specialist members. The specialist members may have backgrounds in additional support needs, education, social work or health. In certain types of cases a legal member can sit alone. Each tribunal is supported by a case officer, usually assigned to the case for its duration, who deals with all enquiries in relation to the hearing and the progress of the case.^[128] Hearings often last for more than one day and can sometimes take place over two or three days.

The HEC has a much smaller caseload in comparison with the MHTS. Data on the number of applications received by the HEC over the last three years reveals a drop in the total from 146 in 2019/20 to 83 in 2020/21.^[129] However, in the Annual Report for 2021/22, the President reports "This reporting year saw a return to pre-pandemic case levels, the second highest on record (133 cases – increase of 50 from last year)".^[130] The HEC recorded its highest number of cases ever in the year 2022/23 with 202 applications.

Prior to the pandemic, hearings in the HEC took place in person with all participants including parties (parents/carers and/or the child or young person if they are attending), tribunal members and witnesses attending the Glasgow Tribunals Centre or in other locations across Scotland in rooms booked for the purpose of the hearing (for example, other SCTS hearing venues or hotel rooms). Following the announcement of the first national lockdown in March 2020, the HEC ceased hearings completely for a three-month period. In July 2020, hearings recommenced by video through the use of a videoconferencing platform following a successful pilot hearing.

The HEC was the first Scottish tribunal to use video hearings, conducting 52 hearings over 121 days between August 2020 and September 2022.^[131] Learning on the use of the videoconferencing platform, gathered by HEC clerks and caseworkers, was shared more widely with other chambers and tribunal jurisdictions to support the rollout of remote video hearings across Scotland's tribunals.^[132]

The HEC's use of video hearings has continued into the post-pandemic period, alongside a phased reintroduction of in-person or hybrid hearings. Phase 1 hearings, in which the three tribunal members meet in person with all other participants joining via videoconferencing, were introduced in April 2022. Phase 2 hearings, in which all participants were able to attend in person at the Glasgow Tribunals Centre apart from witnesses who appear online, began in October 2022.^[133] Phase 3 will see a full return to the option of in-person hearings. On 6 February 2023, it was announced that Phase 3 would begin on 27 February in a limited number of venues.^[134]

Existing evidence on remote hearings in the HEC

Feedback gathered by the HEC on experiences of video hearings (from clerks, members, parties and their representatives and supporters and witnesses), covering the period March 2020 to September 2022, informed the 'Justice Delivered' report on the impact of the pandemic on the HEC, published in September 2022.^[135] A members' survey for this report (completed by 26 out of 34 members^[136]) found 88.5% in favour of the continuation of video hearings as an option alongside in-person hearings, with 11.5% against. The reflections and comments of other users were also generally positive. This is in line with the findings from the quantitative and qualitative research conducted for the current study, reported below.

Although the HEC has returned to the option of in-person hearings, it is clear that for a variety of reasons, first and foremost the emphasis placed on the importance of choice, the use of video (or, more rarely, telephone) hearings will remain part of a suite of options available to parties.

In 'Justice Delivered' the Tribunal identifies the elements required for such hearings "to be effective and to remain a viable alternative to in-person hearings in the future", many of which overlap with the themes and suggestions emerging from this study, including:^[137] well supported judiciary, with access to a robust and secure internet network; IT support and equipment, including a minimum of two screens and a headset; e-bundles, consistent with documentary evidence guidance; clear guidance to members, parties, witnesses and other participants; and well trained judiciary, clerks and caseworkers.

The report also lists the conditions required to ensure the effective participation of those taking part in such hearings as a key element of access to justice. These are:

• Access to a robust home/office network and a room where they will not be interrupted or overheard
• Regular comfort breaks, reassurance and explanations during the course of the hearing
• Clear (and age/accessibility appropriate) guidance, and
• Test sessions before the hearing to allow any IT issues to be ironed out and provide confidence to participants.^[138]

Again, these findings correspond closely with the quantitative and qualitative data gathered for the current research.

Overall attitudes to remote hearings in the HEC

Survey Findings

The number of respondents to the professionals survey with experience of HEC hearings was very small (n = 26). While Annex A includes tables for HEC responses, caution should be applied in interpreting these. However, among the small group of professionals with experience of HEC cases, most (around 8 in 10) felt that video hearings could work very or fairly well for evidential hearings, as well as for procedural business.^[139] This is in line with the levels of support for the continuation of video hearings expressed in the HEC's own survey,^[140] discussed above. Most (again, around 8 in 10) of the small number with experience of telephone hearings also felt that telephone could work well for procedural business in the HEC, which in this context refers to judicial case management meetings.^[141]

Interview Data

As discussed in chapter 1, interviews relevant to this chapter included seven parties (primarily parents, but including one interview with a young person), a group discussion with four tribunal members, and interviews with two legal representatives, one independent advocate and two HEC clerks.

Overall, the HEC parties interviewed for this study reported positive experiences with remote hearings: all said they would be happy to or would prefer to take part by video in the future. The key elements that were seen by parties to work well were similar to those discussed in previous chapters, including benefits of participating from a familiar and comfortable space, and saving time and money around travel / accommodation. Reducing logistical barriers in terms of travel or childcare were viewed as particularly impactful for those with a health condition or disability or those with children with additional support needs. There was also a perception that participating by video could make it more accessible and less intimidating for children or young people to take part in the hearing. Where parties discussed what had worked less well, they tended to mention technical difficulties.

Legal representatives, IAs and tribunal members echoed the view of parties that children and young people who are disabled or neurodiverse (e.g. autistic or with other conditions such as ADHD) and/or who experience social anxiety and/or communication difficulties tend to be more relaxed in their home settings and can use video hearings "creatively and flexibly". Being able to join remotely has also made it easier to organise witnesses and to ensure their attendance – for example teachers are able to join the hearing as part of their working day. The whole process was generally viewed as less time consuming for all, as hearing time is "kept to a minimum". However, there was also general agreement among professionals that what works best (in terms of remote, in person or hybrid) will vary depending on the individual party's needs and personal preference.

While professionals reported no change to outcomes with the move to video hearings they reflected in some detail on differences in process between hearings conducted in-person and those conducted remotely by video. These differences were perceived as having had both positive and some negative impacts for those involved. These issues are discussed in more detail below.

Perceived impacts of remote hearings on access to justice

Access to the formal legal system and to a fair and effective hearing

As discussed above, given the very small sample size, survey findings can only give a tentative indication of HEC professionals' views. However, with this caveat in mind, of the issues the survey asked about relating to parties' access to and participation in hearings, the main issues identified by HEC respondents as being at least fairly common in video hearings^[142] were:

• technical issues joining remotely (most thought this was at least a fairly common issue for HEC parties)
• parties struggling to join because their device was not well suited to videoconferencing (while most thought this was not very common, around 4 in 10 said it was fairly common)
• parties experiencing difficulties speaking to a representative during a hearing or difficulties reading documents on screen (again, more thought these were not very common issues, but around 3 in 10 said they were at least fairly common issues for HEC parties).

On balance, among the small sample of HEC professionals who responded to the survey, more felt that a legally represented child or young person (either with or without additional support needs) would find it easier to take part by video, rather than face-to-face. However, around a quarter to a third were unsure either way (Annex A, Table A.4d).

Joining hearings: technology, location, support

All of the HEC parties interviewed had successfully joined their remote hearing with few issues. Participants had generally received clear information in advance via email about how to join, along with a link, and were usually asked to test the link beforehand and offered a test call if needed. Parties reported having designated technical support (presumably the clerk, though this was not always completely clear) to attendees to help if things went wrong, which was seen as helpful in overcoming technical anxieties:

"I'm not a technophobe, but nor am I very technical, so you know, there was almost the fear of what if something goes wrong. I don't know how to fix this. But it was all really smooth and really well organised, and I know the technical person was around the whole time." (HECP03, HEC party, parent)

However, as in all the other hearing types discussed in this report, technical issues in accessing the hearing did still sometimes occur as a result of issues with parties' devices, WiFi connections, or digital skills and ability. In common with previous chapters, participants agreed that, over time, people got better at using the technology and that some of these issues had reduced. At the same time, legal representatives and tribunal members raised ongoing concerns about digital inequality and exclusion and how this might affect parties' and some witnesses' ability to attend and to take part in a hearing. Examples were given of clients joining using mobile phones (again, not viewed as suitable for video hearings) and having to share equipment with others ("one iPad per household"), limiting their access and privacy and potentially compromising security (for example, if others were able to access tribunal-related paperwork). Tribunal members reported that most parties who appear before the Tribunal are represented which improves access to justice overall. However, it was also noted by members that some parties relied on their legal representatives for access to and support with IT equipment.

Parties themselves indicated that legal representatives typically helped to prepare them for the hearing and explained how it would work and what to expect. They also highlighted the importance of clerks in ensuring everybody knew what was going on during the hearing, including the schedule and any breaks. They felt it was useful to have clear introductions at the beginning of a video hearing so that they knew who everyone on the call was and what their specific role was.

Parties described various ways in which they felt video hearings had made it easier, or even possible, for them to attend when they may not have been able to attend an in-person hearing. As noted above, there were perceived to be particular benefits for those with a health condition, disability, or additional support need which could present additional challenges for traveling or being in a new, potentially physically inaccessible, place. One participant who is severely sight-impaired explained that, if she had been required to travel, she would have needed somebody to guide her and to be in a space that enabled her to use a cane. Another participant with a health condition noted that being at home meant that they had things they needed, such as their medication, close to hand.

Similarly, where interviewees had supported children or young people as family members and IAs to join and contribute to hearings themselves, the fact that the hearing was held by video was thought to have played an important role in enabling this. They reported that children could decide more spontaneously whether they felt comfortable taking part after watching some of the proceedings, were less intimidated by not having to be in the room with others, and felt more comfortable taking part in a familiar and safe environment:

"Because of conditions or just their age, they sometimes need to be doing something else…playing on a phone, colouring… and this is harder in person. They can be present at an online hearing but also occupied." (HECLR1, legal representative)

Tribunal members and clerks thought that children were more likely to attend hearings by video than if they were conducted face to face.^[143]

Tribunal members and legal representatives raised concerns, however, about the need to ensure that the party or witness was on their own when giving evidence and the difficulty of being able to do this if the person was taking part remotely. There was a perceived risk that a third party present in the room could influence or distort the evidence being given:

"I have noticed that legal members are now checking that the person is on their own, that they are in private and that nobody else is actually there." (MHEC01, HEC tribunal member)

There was also some concern that witnesses could look up information not contained in the official bundle of documents provided by the Tribunal on their computers during the hearing.

Participation and engagement

HEC parties generally felt that it had been easy to take part in video hearings and get their views across effectively. One participant thought that occasionally it was not as easy to hear everything that was said, but that this was not a major difference compared to in-person discussions.

The general view from all professional groups was that children and young people prefer video hearings to in-person hearings. Tribunal members noted that they find that children and young people's evidence is more natural as they appear to be more relaxed in their home settings:

"… the quality of that participation I think is higher because they are more relaxed [when] they are at home… a huge advantage in a jurisdiction where there is a statutory duty on us to seek the views of the child, the young person, then being able to fulfil that duty I think far more often than we used to." (MHEC04, HEC tribunal member)

Interviewees reported that some children and young people do not want to appear on screen and are able to switch their cameras off when giving evidence (although it was noted that the tribunal members usually like to see them at some point). Others at the hearing could also make use of the facility to switch cameras on and off so that the party can only see one person on screen at a time, making communication easier.

Body language

Parties mentioned some initial concerns around getting across their personality or strength of feeling without seeing people face-to-face or the use of body language, but this was not thought to be an issue in practice in HEC hearings. However, they felt they had been able to make a better impression during the hearing by having the ability to turn their video off or mute their audio. They would do this if they felt they were getting too emotional or anxious, and felt that this improved their ability to engage with the hearing as they did not have to worry as much about controlling their emotional response to discussions:

"I wouldn't be able to storm out the tribunal room, but at least I could put the camera off, put the sound off, and just 'raarh', and then go back in." (HECP01, party, parent)

On the other hand, as in previous chapters, legal representatives did worry about non-verbal cues being lost on video, and how this might affect their cross-examination of witnesses. There was also a perception that it might affect the legal representative's ability to pick up on the non-verbal cues of tribunal members, for example an unspoken signal that they should change their questioning strategy. This aspect was also mentioned by tribunal members in terms of both credibility and participant welfare: there was a perception that picking up important signals can be more difficult by video, for example spotting when a witness is getting tired or when someone is distressed, or "…hesitation in that witness that wasn't necessarily visible on the screen".

Communicating during hearings

As in previous chapters, parties and their legal representatives and/or IAs discussed using various methods to communicate during hearings, including WhatsApp and texts. Breaks can also be requested to enable phone calls. While parties did not raise any concerns about the level of communication with their legal representative, they did imagine (when prompted) that they would have communicated more had the hearing been in person.

Legal representatives themselves reported that they found it harder to support clients online than in person. Representatives have to remember to check in regularly and to remind clients to take breaks especially if they are distressed which is "harder if you're not beside them". If a child or young person becomes upset or aggressive in response to something said at a hearing, it was felt to be much easier to reassure them in person. A further concern voiced by tribunal members was that the appearance of members from behind their (sometimes multiple) computer screens might present a physical barrier to communication, engagement and participation of the party "…that a pad of paper wouldn't".

Impact on timing of decisions

There was no mention by parties of remote hearings having an impact on the timing of hearing decisions. Likewise, professional groups did not note any impact in this respect. This is probably because decisions from HEC hearings are deferred and are given in writing and this element does not differ between video and in-person hearings.

Impact on the outcome of decisions

There was also general agreement among professional groups that the mode of hearing had had no impact on the outcome of the case. However, one tribunal member did report feeling less confident in their own judgments when the hearing was conducted remotely. They attributed this to the loss of non-verbal cues and body language and greater reliance on written rather than oral evidence (see below):

"I don't find the experience anything like as, well I'm going to say fulfilling, but I don't have the same, quite the same confidence in my judgments as I do in person." (MHEC03, HEC tribunal member)

There was also general agreement among parties that the mode of video hearings had not impacted on decisions in a negative way:

"I worried a little bit that it would [impact the outcome] because of the remoteness of it and not actually having met, not seeing the body language, etc. [...] but clearly […] it didn't impact, they took the information on board." (HECP04, party, parent)

In fact, for those parties who felt that the mode of the hearing had better enabled them to participate, there was a feeling that this might have positively impacted on the outcome of the hearing:

"In a way I think it [being remote] might have [impacted the outcome] because I was less anxious and felt more supported by my parents. It meant I was a bit more free to…I felt a bit more confident in saying what I was saying." (HECP02, Party, young person)

Another participant believed that the fact her daughter had been able to take part in the hearing because it was remote had directly impacted on the tribunal's decision,

"I do [think having it remotely impacted outcome] because I think them speaking to my daughter […] I think that really impacted on their decision in a positive way." (HECP06, Party, parent)

Other perceived impacts of remote hearings

Formality

Concerns expressed in previous chapters that holding a hearing remotely would cause people to treat it with less formality or take it less seriously were not generally reflected in the experiences of the HEC parties interviewed. However, there was one incident of a witness joining from an inappropriate location, in an outdoor public space where they could be overheard. They were asked to leave and the (parent) interviewee felt this was dealt with effectively by the tribunal chair:

"One of the witnesses came on and they were outside […] so an element of professionalism was skewed with that witness because they weren't there in person […] Some people might think that when it's remote there's [less] formality. [...] I was concerned because obviously they were discussing my daughter and quite private things about her education and about her needs." (HECP06, party, parent)

A legal representative noted that a degree of formality in their hearings could be a positive for young people: although they might find formal processes daunting, some formality assured them that their case is being taken seriously. The President has issued guidance about the need for formal attire for tribunal members, witnesses and representatives and the legal representative had discussed this with one of his child clients who felt this made it different from other meetings they attended and that such standards were important.

Tribunal members were generally of the view that a level of informality was a good thing as it helped the party and witnesses to relax and enabled children and young people to give their evidence in a more natural way. However, they agreed that there is a balance to be struck between parties and witnesses being comfortable and being "too relaxed" and losing the sense of formality of the hearing as a legal process. There were some mixed views among members on the impact of remote hearings on this. One member reflected:

"I think most of our witnesses still feel very nervous, and still feel that this is a very formal occasion and have done a lot of preparation beforehand." (MHEC01, HEC tribunal member)

However, another member worried that the move to video hearings could lessen their perceived importance to witnesses:

"What should you feel as a witness when you're about to give evidence in a case of some magnitude? How should you feel about that? Should you feel, you know, 'I'll fit it into my working day, och, I'm doing other stuff and I'm distracted?' Or should you actually be giving up your day to go along to the building because that is important and you need to be focused." (MHEC04, HEC tribunal member)

Impact on transparency

HEC hearings are almost exclusively held in private, so the impact of remote hearings on public transparency of hearings was not relevant. Although the HEC can consent to public hearings, these are rarely if ever requested and none of those interviewed had any experience of them.

Impact on efficiency

Although the small sample of HEC respondents to the professionals survey were generally quite positive about video hearings, they did not appear to consider them more efficient in terms of time – around 3 in 10 felt video hearings took longer than face-to-face, while a third felt they were about the same (Annex A, Table A.6).

Overall, the parties interviewed reported that they had saved time by joining hearings remotely as opposed to in person, primarily due to removing travel time. At the same time, despite not experiencing any major issues joining a remote hearing, both parties and professionals described various technical difficulties that could cause disruption and take up extra time, similar to those discussed in previous chapters. Tribunal members also noted that hearings rarely start on time and that they are not necessarily shorter than in-person hearings because of the need to build in breaks.

Both legal representatives and tribunal members were complimentary about the leadership, management and administration of the HEC service overall. Although hearings had been halted for three months from the end of March 2020, after that there had been a rapid move to video with no backlog. The fact that the number of cases was lower than for some other services within the civil justice system had undoubtedly helped with this but, nonetheless, the quick changeover was commended. Clerks were also singled out as contributing to the smooth and efficient running of the service.

Impact on wellbeing and work-life balance

As discussed above, the parties interviewed highlighted the positive impacts of being able to take part from their own home in terms of comfort and accessibility (particularly for those with disabilities or additional support needs). Some parties felt that taking part in hearings remotely and from a distance could reduce the intensity of the experience, defusing feelings of anxiety and helping them to manage conflict:

"I think I was probably more comfortable with it being done online rather than face to face, because I was in my own environment […] clearly for me, it was going to be a very emotional process because we were talking about my son and his placement in the future. The fact that I was in a place where I was comfortable made it easier for me. […] I was able to break, to have things around me, to have easy access to a cup of tea, to food, to a glass of water." (HECP03, Party, parent)

"You didn't have to face being in the same room as the people you are basically going 'against'." (HECP04, Party, parent)

Video hearings could also enable parties to better manage caring responsibilities, by reducing the need to arrange childcare which could be particularly challenging for HEC parties, given they are more likely to have children with additional support needs or disabilities. A participant with caring responsibilities also highlighted that the time saved by attending remotely meant they did not have to lose respite time for themselves.

However, the lack of separation between hearing and home was not always ideal for parties: for example, one participant said that taking part from home meant she did not have the time to "de-compress" afterwards which could make it harder to recover if the discussion had caused her to feel stressed or upset.

Moreover, while for most parties the ability to take a break was not an issue, one participant felt that requesting a break was more difficult in a remote environment compared to being face-to-face. For this participant, being able to take a break quickly was important for health reasons, but she had to text her solicitor and wait for them to see it before she was able to leave. However, the participant felt that, on balance, being sick at an in-person hearing would have been worse.

Parties commented on the important role that clerks could play in helping parties to feel at ease during hearings:

"…she was a clerk […] I think having someone who is very calm, can speak very clearly, has a kind of a pleasant demeanour, she had, she smiled a fair amount, I felt quite relaxed when she started speaking [...] I also felt very appreciative of the fact that she spoke up for me when it was time for me to be questioned, that she obviously was taking my kind of wellbeing into consideration." (HECP03, Party, parent)

All of the professionals interviewed highlighted that the wellbeing of the party in any hearing was a central priority. They echoed the views expressed by parties, above, that the move to video hearings had resulted in many positive impacts for parties. In terms of their own wellbeing, professionals cited reductions in travel and overnight stays as having had a positive impact on time at home and with their families.

Legal representatives in this field provide specialised support and representation services and so their work takes place on a national scale. This means that the distances involved and frequency of travel to in-person hearings could be significant and video hearings had obviously reduced this. However, video hearings, including the use of written witness statements, meant that their work was "front loaded" with preparation. Furthermore, HEC hearings can be long and complex, and the specialist services offered by legal representatives are often over-subscribed, so that there was a perception that any time gained was quickly reallocated to other cases or different aspects of their work, thus reducing any positive impact on their wellbeing.

As in previous chapters, this ambivalence on the part of professionals about the impact of remote hearings on their own wellbeing was reflected in the survey data. Among the small sample of the HEC respondents, most (7 in 10) felt the move to remote hearings had a positive impact on their work-life balance. Views on the impact on their wellbeing were more divided, however, with similar numbers reporting positive and negative impacts.

One legal representative, when asked about the impacts on their wellbeing, pondered whether the dilution of concentration that came with remote hearings might not be a good thing:

"If [you are] away at a hearing this might be all you focus on whereas if you are online you are juggling with other work and distractions at the same time." (HECA02, legal representative)

As in previous chapters on other court and tribunal settings, all professional groups regretted the loss of human contact and social interaction in their day-to-day work. Tribunal members also reported tiredness and difficulties in concentrating for hours at a time onscreen but were keen to stress that their own wellbeing or convenience is not a primary concern as their focus is always on the wellbeing of the party.

Views on other current and potential adaptations

All participants (legal representatives, parties, witnesses, tribunal members) now receive a full electronic bundle of documents sent in pdf form by email. The use of full written statements submitted in advance, sometimes in place of oral evidence, has been taking place over some time and predates the pandemic measures. Other documents, such as outline written submissions, are also used frequently. As in the MHTS, the electronic bundle is lengthy and can be several hundred pages long in some cases.

In common with other contexts discussed in previous chapters, all professionals felt that the sharing of papers electronically in advance with professionals, parties and witnesses was generally an improvement in terms of efficiency. However, again, preferences for electronic documents over hard copy varied. There was a strong view that it is too difficult to manage the bundle entirely onscreen, alongside the appearance of seven or eight participants and the typing of notes. There was also a suggestion that the circulation of replacement versions to which new documents had been added was confusing.

Parties had mixed views on how well digital bundles worked, again reflecting on the advantages of being able to search on an electronic device, but also the challenges of accessing documents and engaging in a video call on the same device.

Conclusions

As the quantitative and qualitative data show, parties and professionals were generally positive about the use of video hearings in the HEC. However, there were some important and nuanced views reported on specific aspects of remote hearings, for example, challenges for legal representatives in providing support for clients during hearings, and also across different groups of parties, including ongoing concerns about digital inequalities and exclusion for some. This suggests that there is no "one size fits all" for hearings in the HEC.