CAS responded to the Scottish Civil Justice Council’s Call for Evidence on Modes of Attendance Rules at the Court of Session and regarding ordinary cause procedure at Sheriff Court.

CAS believes that providing for a range of modes of attendance is positive where channel choice is fully enabled and implemented effectively. Potential benefits of virtual attendance at court must not come at the expense of access to justice for those who rely on a specific mode of attendance, often the most vulnerable in society. For example, women and children fleeing domestic abuse, people who are socio-economically marginalised and/or require additional support due to, for example, disability or language issues often experience digital exclusion.

We would recommend that to ensure that courts are inclusive and provide equal access to justice for everyone, we need effective mechanisms which support people impacted by digital exclusion, those disproportionately affected by civil justice issues such as disabled people, and those with additional support needs. 

It is essential that:

• effective channel choice is offered and fully resourced, to enable rights-holders to access digital and online services if they choose to do so or utilise another channel if that is more suitable and required.
• If a virtual hearing is the default for specific types/stages of proceedings or actions, the process and criteria for changing to an alternative channel should be made transparent and clear for the public. Any negative decisions on requests for alternative modes such as physical in-person hearings should provide clear explanations.
• Information on additional support and assistance available as well as people’s right to request reasonable adjustments should be communicated early and in a clear way to the public.
• Person-centred, free support should be provided by or made available at courts for those requiring additional support.
• Rights-holders with lived experience of court proceedings and those who may experience barriers to engaging with courts, as well as organisations that represent and/or serve them, should ideally inform regular monitoring and reviews/development of policies and practices.