Civil justice system - pandemic response: research findings

7. Conclusions and considerations for the future

This final chapter looks across the findings presented in the preceding five chapters to draw out the key themes and challenges that will need to be considered in any future decisions about remote and hybrid hearings. These themes comprise: multiple perspectives on the advantages and disadvantages of remote hearings; issues relating to the technology required to support remote and hybrid hearings; communication within remote and hybrid hearings; supporting parties in remote and hybrid hearings; supporting professionals working in remote and hybrid hearings; and issues relating to formality, the rule of law and open justice.

Under each theme, any similarities or differences between the court, tribunal and case contexts under study are also discussed. Suggestions for improvement, drawing on the professionals survey and the interviews with professionals and parties, are included (highlighted in bold), with a particular focus on what people think can be done to improve the experience of remote hearings and other uses of digital technology in the civil justice system for each of these different groups. The final section considers what indicators might be used to assess whether and how remote hearings "work well" for service users, staff and the judiciary in the future.

This concluding chapter draws from suggestions arising from those interviewed across the four different settings included in this research. However, as a number of the issues raised by commercial interviewees were quite specific to that setting, some of the suggestions for improvements in commercial actions (chapter 3) are represented in more detail in the chapter itself.

A blended future?

A key overarching finding from this study is that, on many of the issues discussed, experiences differed – sometimes significantly – resulting in multiple perspectives with no clear consensus: the perceived advantages and disadvantages of remote hearings vary across and within different contexts and for different participants.

The clearest agreement among professionals, at least those working in the courts, was that remote hearings were viewed as relatively more beneficial and/or less problematic in the context of procedural rather than substantive hearings. This broadly reflects the current guidance for both the Sheriff Courts and Court of Session which, since mid-2022, has provided that substantive hearings (including child welfare hearings) shall be in person and that procedural business and debates^[144] shall continue by electronic means unless otherwise directed by the court.^[145]

However, this distinction between procedural and substantive hearings was less clearly made by parties in family law cases, and is less relevant in any case to MHTS and HEC hearings. Within the MHTS and HEC, there was clearly a desire among professionals to be able to offer parties choice between modes, taking account of their particular needs and circumstances. At present, this appears to be more feasible within the HEC and, subject to certain constraints, within the MHTS due to room availability and IT access and quality in hospital and other settings.

Suggestions for improvement: appropriate choice of mode

• Improving the resources to support both in-person and hybrid hearings – improvements to the IT resources required to support remote hearings are discussed further below, but with respect to the MHTS, the lack of suitable rooms for in-person hearings, both in hospitals and community settings, was seen as a major issue which had been exacerbated by the pandemic. In the HEC, it was noted that hybrid hearings were currently restricted to Glasgow because of the equipment needed but that facilities should be available elsewhere in Scotland. At an even more basic practical level, the table size and shape at the Tribunal Centre was found by some to be problematic in terms of hybrid hearings (it could be difficult to make enough space to accommodate tribunal members' laptops). Similar issues around equipment were reported in the courts, with one advocate suggesting a need for mobile screens that could be positioned flexibly.
• Developing a 'triage' system or guidance on mode – whether there is a desire to offer choice of mode to parties (as in the tribunals), or where courts are in a position to vary from the default, a decision-making process is needed. One suggestion (from HEC tribunal members – but possibly applicable in other contexts with adaptations) was that a triage system could be introduced to determine mode, based on the circumstances of each case. A set of principles, tests or relevant factors could be developed and applied to facilitate independent decision-making about the most suitable format based on the needs and possible vulnerabilities of the party (including whether they are legally represented or not) or witnesses, and any other relevant circumstances. A suggestion from an advocacy organisation of how this approach might be applied in the family law context was that, where cases are particularly complex but there is no sheriff with extensive experience of family cases, it might be possible for a sheriff with such experience, based outwith that Sheriffdom, to hear the case remotely.^[146]

Technology – soluble and insoluble issues

Technological challenges around remote hearings featured strongly across the different case types, courts and tribunals considered in this study. Although in all cases these were considered to have lessened since the earliest days of the pandemic, as people became more familiar with the platforms used, a number of issues persisted, with negative impacts for parties and professionals.

Variability in the use of video hearings and equipment to support this

At the time of writing, video hearings were almost always used for HEC hearings, while telephone remained the dominant mode for MHTS hearings (reflecting the high volume and limitations on the number of NHS settings able to support video hearings). Participants noted that there were still some issues around equipment to support video hearings in the Court of Session (for example, docking stations not always functioning). However, in general Court of Session judges appeared to be fairly well equipped in terms of multiple screens and other equipment required to support video hearings. In contrast, as discussed in chapter 3, the use of video hearings varied across Sheriff Courts and appeared to be more limited, even when pandemic restrictions were in place, in some Sheriff Courts (notably Glasgow). In the HEC too, where most hearings from mid-2020 onwards were video hearings and where there was a strong desire to retain video hearings to maximise choice for parties, tribunal members noted that they were still often using their own laptops and tablets for hearings.

Equity of access to equipment to enable effective participation was arguably an even greater issue with respect to parties. There was a general consensus across the four case types that it was very difficult for parties to participate effectively in a video hearing on a mobile phone, while lack of access to a second screen created difficulties reading documents during hearings. Joining on shared devices could also create potential security issues.

Security and confidentiality issues

Heightened risks to the security of confidential information in remote hearings were raised as an issue of concern. Around 1 in 8 family law professionals who responded to the professionals' survey were worried about the illicit recording of family hearings, a concern that was shared by some of the parties, sheriffs and support organisations interviewed, with reports that such recordings had been shared online. Security risks raised by some MHTS members interviewed were related to the confidentiality of proceedings in telephone hearings where those unconnected with the case had gained entry to a hearing.

Connectivity and WiFi

Even where parties had access to an appropriate device, issues with poor internet access could prevent them being able to join or participate fully in hearings, while mobile phone reception could cause issues if they were phoning in (described by clerks as a 'back up' option where parties were unable to join by video). Internet connections had also created issues with witnesses giving evidence remotely. WiFi coverage in both courts and (for MHTS) hospital buildings was also described by professionals as an ongoing issue. A lack of good WiFi coverage across the court estate was a barrier to, for example, agents sharing documents effectively when attending remote or hybrid hearings.

Suggestions for improvement: technology to support remote hearings

The most common suggested change cited by professional survey respondents with experience of the court system was to improve the reliability of equipment or provide better IT resources (mentioned by 17% respondents with experience of the Court of Session and 15% of those with experience of Sheriff Court – Annex A, Table A.14). Respondents with experience of MHTS suggested increased use of videoconferencing (22%) and improving the reliability and quality of IT resources (12%), while a quarter of the small number of HEC respondents also mentioned improving IT resources and equipment.

Suggestions from the in-depth interviews included:

• Ensuring professionals are provided with appropriate equipment, whether at home or in a court or other public building. It was suggested that those routinely joining remote hearings required computers with appropriate security, multiple screens, and electronic readers. As a HEC tribunal member put it:

"…it's just basic equipment that we need, because well we need it and we can't conduct a remote hearing without a computer…obviously it has all happened very quickly and nobody expects you suddenly to magic up all the equipment straight away, but it is three years now or two and a half whatever it is, so I think probably it is time that we are actually equipped to do the job." (HECLM2)

• Taking a systematic approach to addressing digital inequality among parties – for example, an advocacy organisation noted that in some countries, video kiosks had been set-up in libraries for use by those attending court hearings remotely. Family law parties suggested that court buildings themselves could offer quiet spaces with appropriate phone reception, strong and stable internet connections, appropriate devices and IT support, so that parties who lacked any of these were still able to join remote hearings. HEC professionals suggested that any cost savings from reduced travel and accommodation for tribunal members and clerks should be reinvested in overcoming digital inequalities among parties and witnesses.
• Improving the WiFi in public buildings – as noted above, inconsistent or non-existent WiFi signals in public buildings, including courts and, for the MHTS, hospitals, was viewed as a significant issue in terms of being able to join remote hearings.
• Improving functionality within available platforms – As most participants were only familiar with SCTS' selected videoconferencing platform as an option for remote hearings, there was little discussion of potential alternatives. However, some professionals commented on additional functionality that would improve efficiency, such as the ability to record hearings and make use of automated transcription. It was suggested that this would help bring down the costs to parties of accessing court transcripts (something perceived to impact disproportionately on party litigants). Although not specifically suggested by any participants, enhanced security measures and the adoption of related protocols in all remote hearings would alleviate the potential security risks identified in the family courts and MHTS.

Finally, while the suggestions above might help address some technical issues, occasional issues around connectivity and equipment are likely to be an enduring feature of remote hearings. Given this, it may also be worth considering whether there is a need for clearer, SCTS-wide guidance on how to manage hearings when technical issues do arise – for example, when a hearing should be paused or suspended if a participant's internet connection fails.

In addition to suggestions for improvement to the functionality of the video hearing platform, interviewees also wanted to see improvements to other court systems and processes in order to improve efficiency, reduce professional workloads, and enhance access to justice, particularly for party litigants. Suggestions included:

• Improving the speed of ICMS to make it more efficient for the judiciary and others to use.
• Making greater use of emails, including allowing party litigants to email papers – this was raised specifically with reference to family cases, where it was noted that party litigants currently had to use sheriff officers, at additional expense.
• Improving the digital document system. Facilitating better access to documents was mentioned as a suggested improvement by 14% of professionals with experience of the Court of Session and 10% of Sheriff Court respondents. Solicitors interviewed for this study suggested granting access to the ICMS system so that they could upload documents directly rather than emailing clerks (something clerks noted could add to their workload when revised documents were received late in the day). It was suggested this would improve efficiency and accuracy. Legal representatives in the HEC also felt there should be a central online document depository and handling/sharing centre as they were still emailing lengthy documents to each other, and email data limits can cause difficulties. Centralised document management would enable secure access to information about each case when needed (although it is recognised that there may be security issues to address in implementing such a system).
• Enabling greater access to electronic documents for party litigants. There was a perception among some of those working with party litigants that better use of the full functionality of electronic systems could help to redress perceived imbalances between party litigants and represented parties in terms of ease of access to the system:

"I think there is still very much a them and us system, if you're a lawyer handling your client's case you get involved with it, but if you are a party litigant, you are representing yourself, they don't…the arrangements aren't made so easily. This happens within the civil procedural cases, they have recently introduced new ways that lawyers can get all the case material through a civil procedure, and I made an enquiry at that point and said, are you making this arrangement for party litigants, and they said, 'Not yet'." (Advocacy Organisation)

Communication

Perceived differences in the nature and quality of communication within and around remote hearings was another key theme across case types and settings. Even when there were no issues with the technology, interviewees highlighted a number of communication challenges that need to be considered when hearings are held remotely.

Communication between parties and representatives

Issues relating to how parties are able to communicate with their legal representatives are encapsulated by an advocate's comment that "the tug of the gown, so to speak, can't really happen online". Solicitors, advocates and parties had established various ways of accommodating this, including joining hearings together from the legal representative's offices, making use of instant messages or texts, and allocating junior solicitors or advocates to monitor client instructions via these separate channels. However, none of these options were ideal, and both professionals and parties expressed frustrations with the impacts both on the flow and effectiveness of representation and clients' ability to give instruction and to engage with proceedings.

Fewer concerns about communication between parties and legal representatives were expressed by parties involved in HEC cases (although legal representatives nonetheless reported finding it harder to support clients online than in-person). While some caution should be applied given the relatively small number of interviews involved, it is perhaps worth noting that HEC hearings appeared to make relatively greater use of the text chat function on the videoconferencing platform and to schedule breaks, both of which may help support communication between parties and legal representatives.

Communication between professionals

In addition to communication within the hearing, professionals involved in the Sheriff Court and Court of Session also discussed the perceived impact of remote hearings on communication outwith hearings. There was a belief that the loss of the informal contact between legal representatives that occurs outside the courtroom around an in-person hearing had a detrimental impact on the ability to move cases forward, or to come to agreements without the need for formal hearings.

Body language and non-verbal cues

In addition to verbal communication within and outwith hearings, body language and non-verbal cues were recurrent themes in discussion of the impact of remote hearings across professional groups and parties within the four court and tribunal settings. However, while there was a consensus that it was more difficult to observe body language in video hearings (and impossible in telephone ones), there was no clear consensus on the implications.

For example, some commercial solicitors and advocates placed a strong emphasis on body language in assessing witness credibility and were concerned at the loss of this in remote hearings. However, this view was challenged by both sheriffs and Court of Session judges, who felt that body language was not and should not be determinative in this regard. Similarly, tribunal members in the MHTS noted that a potential advantage of telephone hearings was their removal of unjustified assumptions based on appearance or demeanour.

Parties too were divided in their views on the loss of body language – while one view among parties (particularly among family law and commercial parties interviewed for this study) was that the sheriff being unable to see their body language (or sometimes that of the other party, witnesses or solicitors) had been detrimental. However, others were less concerned about this, while HEC interviewees in particular highlighted perceived advantages to being able to "hide" body language, such as being able to switch the camera off when they were feeling particularly emotional.

However, this latter point relates to another concern about the loss of non-verbal cues among some sheriffs in family law cases and tribunal members, which is that without being able to observe party and witness demeanour it was more difficult for them to identify if they were becoming upset and/or to intervene to handle sensitive hearings in an appropriate way.

Suggestions for improvement: communication in and around remote hearings

With respect to communication between legal representatives and parties, family law parties interviewed for this study wanted to have the ability to message their solicitor privately within video hearings. It may be worth reflecting on whether greater use could be made across court/tribunal settings of the functionality of videoconferencing platforms to support communication between representatives and parties – whether using the text chat function or having the option of using a separate 'meeting room' within the same videocall.

There were no direct suggestions for improvements relating to body language other than avoiding the use of telephone or video hearings altogether, for those who felt strongly about its loss either as a means of assessing credibility or responding appropriately to participants. However, if remote hearings remain a feature of the civil justice system in the future, there may be a need for further discussion among professionals (and potentially with parties too) about the relative importance of body language to the judiciary and others in performing their roles, and what the implications of this might be within the context of different types of remote hearings.

Supporting parties

Appearing at a court or tribunal is a daunting prospect for most people, and particularly for those who are representing themselves or who have additional vulnerabilities, such as age, disability, or neurodiversity, that may present a barrier to meaningful engagement with proceedings. It is important to consider how these barriers may be either exacerbated or, potentially, ameliorated in a remote context.

Party litigants

Party litigants were primarily discussed with respect to family law and commercial actions. There was a strong perception among legal professionals and the judiciary that remote hearings were particularly problematic for party litigants. Existing challenges in engaging with court proceedings were perceived to be exacerbated in remote hearings and the implications of any technical difficulties even more significant if the party did not have a legal representative attending for them. It was also suggested that party litigants had experienced more issues around obtaining the correct information to enable them to join remote hearings in the first instance.

However, among the family law parties interviewed for this study, there was not such a clear distinction between party litigants and represented parties – positive and negative views and experiences of remote hearings were expressed by both. Given the relatively small number of party litigants interviewed for this research, and the fact that individuals may be represented or not at different stages in the process, caution should be applied in extrapolating these findings too widely. At the same time, the data does indicate that party litigants (and represented parties) themselves do not have a consistent preference for in-person over remote hearings.

Potentially vulnerable parties

Both the survey and interviews indicated that professionals are particularly concerned about the potential impacts of remote hearings for parties with additional vulnerabilities. However, again, the perceived impacts were not straightforward. Views varied depending on the mode of hearing, the specific vulnerability in question, and the wider context around their participation (for example, whether they were attending alone or with other support). These questions dominated discussion among those involved in the MHTS and HEC in particular, given the nature of these cases and particular vulnerabilities of parties.

In the MHTS, while telephone hearings were viewed as potentially more suitable for some parties, such as some young people, there were strong concerns about the ability of other parties, such as those with Alzheimer's, to engage effectively (or at all). There was a perception among professionals that more clerks were needed to provide technical support for parties. There were particular concerns among professionals and family members about their ability to offer sufficient support to parties in telephone hearings to enable them to understand what is happening and to deal with any distress associated with the process or outcome, particularly where it is not possible for them to attend from the same location as the party. The short timescale sometimes specified for MHTS parties to call back to get the outcome of a remote hearing (five minutes in some cases, compared with an estimated 20-40 minutes when tribunals meet in person) was interpreted by some as indicating that the decision was a foregone conclusion or that little consideration had been given to their case.

Similar concerns about their ability to provide sufficient support were expressed by legal professionals involved in the HEC. However, the HEC parties interviewed for this study were generally positive about their experiences of video hearings, and indicated that they had been well supported through the process by clerks, tribunal members and legal representatives. There was a perception among professionals that the move to video hearings may have resulted in more children participating directly, as they are able to view part of the hearing from home and then decide whether they wish to contribute (something that would not be feasible with an in-person hearing).

Suggestions for improvement: support for parties

Many of the suggested improvements to the support provided to parties around remote hearings related to improved guidance and information, including:

• Improved guidance around technological issues / practicalities - Family law parties interviewed for this study (both party litigants and represented parties) expressed a desire for more guidance and support (including video tutorials and accessible leaflets) around accessing remote hearings, including providing clear instructions on how to join the hearing, what operating system you need to run the video hearing platform, how to use key features of the platform, and pre-hearing test calls.
• What to expect in hearings more generally - Legal representatives and IAs working in the HEC felt that parties need to have the process of remote hearings explained to them in terms of how the video format will work, what is expected of them and what they can expect from others. There was a suggestion that it would be good if the Tribunal could do this in a standardised and reassuring way at the video hearing itself, supported by prior information in accessible formats (for example the animated videos with relevant information for use by children which the HEC plans to introduce).^[147]
• There were also calls for improvements to the sending of advance information to parties, particularly to party litigants, who were still thought to be missing out on joining details or other advance information in some cases.
• The SCTS website does already provide some guidance on preparing for virtual court or remote attendance, including guidance for party litigants.^[148] However, those interviewed for this study did not appear to be aware of this guidance. The HEC has also produced guidance documents, available on its website, targeted at different participants,^[149] including accessible guidance which can be tailor-made to suit the needs of individual children and young people.^[150] Given calls for participants for improved guidance, it may be worth SCTS reviewing the guidance that is currently available and considering whether it can be made more accessible to all parties – both in terms of content and format, and in terms of how easy it is to find (SCTS guidance currently appears on the SCTS website alongside a fairly long list of other documents relating to remote hearings).
• In terms of providing the advice and emotional support during hearings that may be required by vulnerable participants, legal representatives in the HEC suggested that tribunals should offer dial in and out breaks without these having to be requested (under the current system, parties are placed in an online 'waiting room' during breaks). In the MHTS there had been difficulties during breaks on occasion when parties had been able to hear what tribunal members were saying.
• The issues raised with respect to patients in the community joining MHTS hearings alone are difficult to address. This may need to be a factor in considering both the overall balance between in-person and remote hearings in the MHTS, and whether or not an individual hearing is held remotely. MHTS guidance could also stipulate that decisions in remote hearings are to be given after a specified period of time (e.g. 15 minutes) has elapsed.

Supporting professionals

The report has also identified issues around the extent to which professionals feel they have the training and support they need to conduct their roles effectively within remote hearings, as well as perceived impacts on the nature of those roles.

Impacts on professional wellbeing

The professionals survey found that among those working in the courts, on balance more felt remote hearings had a negative than a positive impact on their wellbeing. This was particularly the case among members of the judiciary and advocates, and was not solely or mainly attributable to workload impacts. In fact, on balance more professionals felt that remote hearings had a positive than a negative impact on their work-life balance. Rather, it appeared to be associated with the perceived intensity or nature of working with remote hearings. For example, professionals discussed the draining impact of being in hearings on a screen all day, while tribunal members and advocates in particular discussed the negative impacts on their wellbeing from loss of social interaction. Feeling unable to support parties as they would wish could also have a significant emotional impact for professionals.

Impacts on professional roles

The impacts of the move to remote hearings on professional wellbeing was strongly linked by some participants to their perceived impact in changing the nature of their professional role within the court system in particular. The impact of removing in-person contact with peers was experienced by advocates in particular as a fundamental change to the nature of their job, as well as having a negative impact on their opportunities for professional development. Members of the judiciary also reported their roles changing in unexpected and, in some cases, unwelcome ways, perhaps encapsulated by the perception of one sheriff that they had become a 'call centre' sheriff. Clerks too felt that expectations of their role had shifted, with parties in particular expecting them to provide a level of IT support they did not feel equipped to provide and did not view as a part of the role of clerk.

Training and resources

As discussed above, SCTS have published a range of guidance documents intended to support professionals, as well as parties, around remote hearings. In addition to guidance on the SCTS website, the Judicial Hub was used to share the Digital Courts Toolkit and Digital Innovation Support and Help Portal, which includes various briefing papers and videos sharing tips for video hearings. However, members of the judiciary and other professionals interviewed for this study indicated that they would have welcomed greater formal training on remote hearings, as well as greater system-wide guidance, particularly with respect to the Sheriff Courts. There was also a perception that training for clerks of court had been "fairly basic" and could be improved. Clerks themselves noted that the training they had received on the video hearing platform did not include showing them how the platform is accessed by other participants, which might enable them to provide better support.

Suggestions for improvement: support for professionals

Suggestions for improvement to the support offered to professionals largely focused on guidance and training.

• Providing (more) information, guidance and training on remote hearings was spontaneously suggested as an area for improvement by 17% of Sheriff Court respondents, 16% of those with experience of the Court of Session, and 10% of MHTS respondents. As discussed, SCTS have already provided some limited guidance and training materials, but members of the judiciary (particularly those working in the courts) interviewed for this study clearly felt formal training could be enhanced.
• Alongside enhanced training for clerks of court including in areas of specialism (for example the management of documentation in commercial cases within the Sheriff Courts), to enable them to support remote hearings as effectively as possible, it was suggested that specialist IT support be available in court buildings to help resolve technical issues.
• There were suggestions from sheriff clerks about improving the ease of organising video hearings, specifically by introducing a function to add a link to video hearings on the SCTS website, rather than Clerks having to email out links to each participant.^[151]

There were fewer practical suggestions around responding to the perceived impacts on professional wellbeing and role, but these are areas that may benefit from ongoing open discussion and reflection as the role of remote hearings evolves post-pandemic. This should include reflecting on the impacts on the role (and training and support requirements) of clerks, as well as the judiciary and legal representatives.

Formality, the rule of law and open justice

In addition to practical concerns about the impacts of remote hearings, in terms of IT, communication, participation and professional roles, participants raised a number of questions about the potential impact on the functioning and status of the courts as the place where justice is done and seen to be done – an important component of the 'rule of law'. These questions often centred around what degree of formality and solemnity is appropriate in different contexts as well as on the need to ensure, as far as possible, public and press access to hearings. In the court setting, there was concern from professionals that remote hearings can be associated with an erosion of formality – overly informal dress, inappropriate language, and unsuitable joining locations – that has a detrimental impact on the 'weight' that proceedings carry for participants. This was echoed by some parties and advocacy organisations, who noted that parties may be more inclined to take the outcome of a hearing seriously when this is delivered in person, in a formal court setting.

Even in the deliberately more relaxed setting of a HEC hearing, a degree of formality was considered important by parties as well as professionals, in terms of reminding all those involved that it is a legal process and that it is being taken seriously. Relatedly, MHTS parties expressed concerns that telephone hearings might be experienced as less stressful but also 'less real', which was not necessarily appropriate given their liberty was at stake.

However, at the same time there was a perception from both family law parties and those involved in the tribunals that elements of informality enabled by joining a hearing remotely – such as being in familiar surroundings, with access to things that made you feel comfortable and safe – could be very helpful in enabling parties to participate more effectively.

The need to ensure open justice through public and press access to commercial hearings was felt to be easier for in-person compared to remote hearings by more professional respondents to the survey. All professional groups interviewed who had had experience of the commercial courts were concerned about the loss of public access in remote hearings. In terms of how best to remedy this, some expressed the view that remote hearings potentially offered wider access to more people through live-streaming and recordings made available online, with the proviso that this would only be appropriate for some hearing types such as appeal hearings or maybe debates, but not where members of the public were involved and/or where evidence was being given.

Suggestions for improvement: the rule of law and open justice

Suggestions around how to retain the status of the court within a remote hearing were predominantly from members of the judiciary working in the courts, rather than from parties or those involved in tribunals. Suggestions included:

• Doing more to replicate the court room environment within a video hearing – for example, there could be virtual rooms which would take parties, step by step from the court entrance through to their hearing. Participants noted that the set-up in other countries (Ireland and Australia were both mentioned) felt closer to an actual court room – for example, a background that makes it clear who the judge is, placed in a consistent central position on screen.
• Standardised directions on conduct during remote hearings, including guidance on appropriate dress and demeanour, and how to address the court, emphasising the seriousness of the court process.

Indicators that arrangements are working

As discussed at the start of this chapter, both the courts and the tribunals have already set out visions for the future which include remote hearings as an enduring feature of civil justice in Scotland. Developing a set of indicators that would be equally relevant across all case types and contexts and to all participants in the process is likely to be challenging. The themes outlined in this final chapter may help to provide a framework for considering these. However, as discussed in chapter 1, the limited scope of the current study in terms of types of civil cases needs to be born in mind – it is possible that different or additional issues and concerns may arise with respect to debt cases, for example, which account for a very large share of Sheriff Court civil business.

What is clear is that in assessing the future impact of remote hearings and other measures, it will be important to continue to gather data from across different participants – including parties. In considering this, SCTS and others may wish to consider what data is currently collected, both routinely and via ad hoc surveys and research, and whether these can be strengthened to provide a detailed and rounded picture of the impact of remote hearings across participants in future. As noted at several points in this report, the lack of data on mode of hearings and on party litigants did pose a challenge to robustly and fully assessing the impact of remote hearings.

At a basic level, strengthening the collection and recording of data about the mode of individual hearings would enable analysis of variations in their use across the court estate. Meanwhile, recording whether one or both parties are party litigants would enable more accurate analysis and support future discussion around the experiences of this group in particular. Beyond routinely recorded data, it may be worth considering a programme of further survey research to monitor how well supported and trained clerks and members of the judiciary feel with respect to remote hearings specifically, and what further training or support they feel they need. In addition, gathering structured feedback from a sample of parties who participate by different modes could help further assess whether the right balance has been struck between remote and in-person, and whether there are further improvements that could be made to support the effective participation of parties, whether remotely or in person.