Defendants were struggling to hear let alone understand legal proceedings, according to a new study of proceedings in the magistrates’ courts which revealed ‘rude, dismissive and careless’ behaviour from judges and court staff. The latest report by Transform Justice’s court observation programme looked at over 2,300 hearings in London magistrates’ courts to identify barriers to effective participation for defendants.

Many defendants ‘did not following what was going on, or even hearing what was being said’, the report found. According to court observers, some defendants appeared ‘totally detached from proceedings – especially when they were in the secure dock or on video link – and courts not always making much effort to involve them beyond asking them for their name and date of birth’. ‘Where defendants did try to intervene they were met with mixed responses.’ Observers were particularly concerned about defendants ‘struggling to navigate proceedings without lawyers, or without an interpreter’. Courtwatchers, as the observers are called, were also critical of unprofessional behaviour including ‘banter or social chit-chat’ in breaks between hearings including ‘gossiping about defendants’ in other cases. ‘These court professionals were ignoring the defendant and family members who were waiting in the courtroom for a possibly life-changing decision,’ the report said. Courtwatchers felt this behaviour ‘showed a lack of respect for defendants and their loved ones, and for the proceedings themselves’. ‘This report finds that judges and court professionals do not consistently treat defendants with respect, nor support them to understand and participate in their court hearings,’ it said.

• The observers for London CourtWatch are recruited through social media, council websites and local press; undergo two workshops (on the magistrates’ court and on how to report observations); and are given a booklet of observation forms to fill in. The new report (Due Dignity: how are defendants treated in London’s magistrates’ courts?) looks at access to legal representation and interpreters; whether judges and magistrates ‘rush’ proceedings; the problematic use of the video links and the secure dock; and whether court staff were ‘stern or solicitous’?

Rude, dismissive and careless
In the report’s foreword, Prof Jessica Jacobson described the justice system as ‘overloaded, creaking and under-resourced’. There was  pressure to complete cases quickly to reduce ‘the delays that permeate all stages of the criminal justice process. ‘Consequences include an over-emphasis on speedy ‘processing’ of many cases and inadequate consideration of individuals’ specific circumstances and needs. And while the humanity of many court professionals shines through courtwatcher accounts, it is evident also that there are judges, magistrates, lawyers and court staff who are rude, dismissive and careless in their interactions with defendants.’

‘At the most basic level, defendants often find it difficult to hear, let alone understand, what is going on at court – whether they are appearing via a shaky video link, or are physically present in the court but (as is most common) seated in the secure dock at the back of the room, behind a perspex screen. Courtroom language tends to be complex, convoluted and full of jargon: not easy for any lay person to understand, and more so for people who are anxious, tired, mentally unwell or otherwise vulnerable.’
Prof Jacobson

The inability to hear legal proceedings was a feature of a previous report. One in five courtwatchers could not clearly hear proceedings. One observer noted: ‘This was the case for all cases on July 11 2025 in Wimbledon magistrates’ court… Quite disappointing and I am positive that the defendant could not hear due to the dock being glass and serving as an additional auditory barrier.’

Courtwatchers observed magistrates and judges taking an inappropriate ‘paternalistic tone’ and a number being ‘overly abrupt, stern or unkind’.  One observer noted: ‘The magistrate was very patronising and dismissive – speaking to the defendant with his eyes closed then rolling his eyes a bit, leaning back in his chair, sighing lots, speaking over the defendant, not explaining things properly’. ‘This made me really sad,’ they continued. ‘He was clearly desperate and in need… was about to be evicted, chronic alcoholic. When he left, the court were saying things like ‘another happy customer, he’ll be back soon’ etc.’

Reports of ‘outright unkindness’ from the courts towards defendants were ‘rare’ but not unheard of. One courtwatcher observed a ‘particularly upsetting exchange’; where a defendant had explained that he had stolen to fuel his drug addiction, was now taking medication for his mental health issues and was ready to fully cooperate with a rehabilitation programme. The defendant said that he was soon to be 40 and wanted to use this as a turning point. The lead magistrate was said to have responded: ‘You know what they say about drug users turning 40? They either use it as a turning point, or they kill themselves.’ The observer described that retort as ‘very harsh and brutal’.

Courtwatchers observed judges, magistrates and staff who hardly seemed to notice the defendant entering the dock.

One in 10 hearings involved a defendant who required an interpreter in the courtwatcher’s judgment, however an interpreter was provided in less than half of those cases. ‘The whole experience was confusing to me whose first language was English, so not sure how the defendant was supposed to make sense of it,’ noted one observer.

Some 5% of hearings involved a video link. The location from which a defendant appeared on video was usually clear but, the report said, ‘the reason why wasn’t’. Vans are available to transport defendants from police custody to court. Yet several defendants appeared by video link from London police stations only a few miles from the courthouse. When these defendants were vulnerable, the decision to book them to participate on a video link was ‘inexplicable’. Courtwatchers were ‘perplexed’ as to why lawyers appeared by video. The ‘most mysterious’ were the district judges who appeared on video. ‘It would have been courteous for the district judges to explain to the defendants why they were on video, not in court, particularly as their internet connections were poor in these cases,’ it said. One district judge ‘froze on screen at the worst possible moment’ as she was about to tell the defendant his sentence.

One hearing was described as ‘particularly bizarre’ when both the defendant and district judge both appeared remotely. The link to Wormwood Scrubs made ‘a loud and very echoey background noise’ and the judge appeared to ‘freeze…  at various points’ during the hearing. Most observers felt video links prevented defendants from understanding and fully taking part in their own hearing.

Hearing and understanding problems were exacerbated by overuse of the secure dock, usually a Perspex box at the back of the courtroom. Observers were also unclear why defendants were by default placed in the dock: 75% were in the dock, 20% in the main courtroom, 5% on video. Courtwatchers felt the dock caused ‘practical problems and the exclusion of defendants’. ‘This is the first time I have seen a defendant outside of the dock, and I assumed it was to facilitate communication and comprehension with the interpreter. I immediately felt greater connection and empathy with the defendant. Not placing them in the dock humanised them and included them in the conversation. The dock has a strong effect of situating the person in it as ‘other’ that I feel is very problematic.’ The greatest practical problem caused by the dock was that it prevented the defendant hearing what was going on in the courtroom.

Observers saw 500 hearings (23%) where the defendant was not represented by a lawyer. Courtwatchers reported examples of unrepresented defendants who seemed to receive more negative outcomes than they would have done if they had had a lawyer. ‘Courtwatchers observed that many defendants did not know they were entitled to a lawyer nor how to access one,’ the report said. ‘Other defendants simply didn’t think they needed a lawyer. And some rejected a lawyer because they didn’t trust them.’ Courtwatchers were ‘impressed’ by judges and court staff who tried to persuade people to access legal advice, especially where they were accused of serious offences.