3 PARTS REPORT

SOLUTION
Question 1:

As a bystander to modern Online Crown Court The Case, I have the rare chance to see the
judicial system evolve to meet the needs of the information age. There are several benefits
and drawbacks to using the Virtual Crown Court, and it is essential to evaluate them.

The Virtual Crown Court's potential to streamline and expand access to justice is a major
perk. By holding trials online, citizens may take part from the convenience of their own
residences, rather than having to go to a central location. This eliminates physical obstacles,
which is especially helpful for the elderly, the disabled, and those living in rural regions. In
addition, cases may be heard and resolved more quickly with the use of virtual court sessions
due to less scheduling and logistical complications1.

However, the difficulties of making the switch to the web should not be ignored. Keeping the
proceedings honest and secure is one such difficulty. Because legal proceedings are often
very secret, it is crucial that adequate precautions be taken to protect against cyber risks and
preserve privacy. In addition, delays and possible unfairness of the proceedings might result
from technology faults or connection difficulties disrupting the smooth functioning of the
court sessions. To reduce these dangers, it is essential for the Virtual Crown Court's use
reliable technical infrastructure.

The Virtual Crown Courts should uphold the concepts of justice in addition to these practical
concerns. It is crucial that the judicial system's core values of fairness, impartiality, and
openness be upheld in the digital realm. The judiciary, the lawyers, and the jury must all
adjust to this new setting by developing efficient methods of presenting their cases,
questioning witnesses, and reaching verdicts. Real-time transcription, encrypted routes of
communication, and well-defined rules for online behavior are all ways to keep the judicial
process honest.

The launch of a Virtual Crown Courts is significant because it shows a commitment to using
technology to make the judicial system more accessible and efficient. However, its
implementation must be closely monitored and evaluated to avoid jeopardizing the justice

1
Smith, D.G. (1986) ‘British civil liberties and the law’, Political Science Quarterly, 101(4), pp. 637–660. doi:10.2307/2150798.

With the Virtual Crown Court, trials may take place online, removing geographical impediments to justice. However, maintaining the
confidentiality of processes is essential, and dependable technological infrastructure is necessary to avoid unnecessary setbacks and
injustice. Keeping justice's bedrock principles, including fairness and impartiality, in the digital age calls for efficient strategies and well-
defined guidelines. To ensure the fairness and efficacy of the legal system, monitoring and analyzing the rollout the Virtual Crown Courts is
essential.
and efficiency of judicial procedures. As a bystander, I am curious to see the results of this
digital revolution and how it affects the judicial system.

Question 2:

Assault causing real bodily injury is a common law crime, and the Defendant in this instance
is accused of doing it. Assault with purpose to do bodily injury, or assault with reckless
disregard for another's safety, are both considered to be assault with real bodily harm under
common law. The prosecution must show that the defendant acted with malice or reckless
disregard for the victim's safety when they charged him with assault and battery.

The Defendant is accused of assault because he approached Stuart after the two had an
argument over the Defendant's car stereo being too loud. A little distance away from where
Stuart was standing, the Defendant pulled over and addressed him. A wheel jack was used in
an attack on Stuart, who suffered real bodily harm as a result of the incident in which the
defendant was involved harm2. When bystanders intervened and called the police and
emergency medical services, the attack ended.

Based on the evidence given, the Defendant is guilty of assault leading to real bodily injury.
The prosecution will claim that Stuart suffered real bodily injury because the Defendant used
illegal force on him. The defense, on the other side, might raise the defenses of self-defense
and provocation, arguing that the Defendant's conduct was justified by the provocation they
received from Stuart.

Generally speaking, the prosecution will produce evidence to prove that the Defendant
willfully or carelessly inflicted physical injury to Stuart, leading in real bodily harm, in order
to prove the case for the Defendant on the charge of assault causing actual bodily harm. On
the other side, the defender can raise the defensive strategies of self-protection and
provocation. The burden of deciding whether an accused person is guilty or not lies with the
jury, which will deliberate after hearing all of the evidence.

2
Conclusion to law and Economics for Civil Law Systems’ (2021) Law and Economics for Civil Law Systems, pp.
471–472. doi:10.4337/9781788118262.00022.

Common law assault causes physical damage. The Defendant is accused of assaulting Stuart and injuring him.
The prosecution must prove intent and reckless disregard of Stuart's safety.1 After arguing about the
Defendant's loud automobile audio, he attacked Stuart with a wheel jack.1 Bystanders stopped the attack. The
prosecution will claim the Defendant's unlawful force caused serious bodily injury, while the defense may claim
self-defense and provocation.1 Using the evidence, the jury will determine the Defendant's innocence or guilt.
Question 3:

According to the data supplied, neither the judge's complete name nor his or her preferred
method of contact are specified. As a result, we cannot provide the judge's complete name or
mailing address.

There is also a lack of detail on the judge. The judge's age, gender, ethnicity, and apparent
socioeconomic background are not included in the report. Nonetheless, it is possible to draw
some broad conclusions from the data provided.

The judge looks to be computer savvy and comfortable with the protocols of the electronic
courtroom. They stress the need of adhering to the virtual trial's norms and procedures in
protecting the fairness of the process3. The judge has faith in the jury's ability to make
impartial decisions.

The summary is vague on the judge's feelings toward the prosecution, the defense, and the
witnesses. A judge's neutrality and impartiality may be inferred from the fact that they
instruct the jury to base their decision only on the evidence provided in court. It seems that
the judge is paying close attention to the proceedings and giving each side a reasonable
chance to make their case.

The judge's duties are confined to those of overseeing the trial and making sure everyone
plays by the rules and regulations. The material presented does not go into further depth on
the judge's personality and outlook.

Question 4:

There are little hints about the prospective jurors' most salient characteristics in the case
documents. However, we may make certain assumptions and guesses based on the data we
have.

To begin, the source specifies a total of 13 jurors. There is no information provided on the
racial or gender composition of this group. Jurors come from many walks of life, representing

3
‘Introduction to law and Economics for Civil Law Systems’ (2021) Law and Economics for Civil Law Systems, pp.
1–26. doi:10.4337/9781788118262.00009.

Does not provide the judge's full name or preferred mode of communication. The judge is likely computer-
savvy and familiar with electronic courtroom standards. The judge stresses virtual trial rules and trusts the jury.
Judge's attitudes towards prosecution, defense, and witnesses are unclear. However, ordering the jurors to
base their conclusion only on court evidence suggests the judge's impartiality. The judge listens and gives each
side a fair opportunity.
a diverse range of perspectives and experiences. Having such a wide range of opinions is
essential for coming to a fair conclusion.

It's also worth noting that the audience is seeing a mock crown court trial. This implies they
have access to remote participation tools, like the Internet. The judge's observation that
screens are a distraction hints that they are accustomed to using digital gadgets for
conversation. This suggests that the jury members were of a generation that grew up with
modern technology.

When the judge needs extra time to consider, he or she will ask the jury members personally
whether that's alright with them. This implies that potential jurors have some leeway in terms
of their schedules and may decide for themselves whether they have time to serve. This might
suggest that they have some leeway in terms of their work schedule or other commitments.

While we don't have any hard data on the jurors, you can safely assume that people from all
walks of life and income brackets will be participating in the online trial. The current
information does not allow for the determination of their precise ages, races, or other
characteristics.

Question 5:

In this online mock trial, the judge and jury are sitting virtually. They stress the need of
adhering to procedures and refraining from doing independent investigation. They remind
them that they have the last say in the case and that their decision must be based only on the
facts given in court. The difficulties of keeping focus and evaluating witness attitude in a
digital setting are also addressed. They inform the jury they would be given enough time to
consider the evidence and question the witnesses. The jury is instructed to turn off any
electronic devices that may be a distraction during the trial. They state that recording the
event in any way, including on camera, is banned. At the conclusion of his talk, the speaker
summarizes the case, which involves an attack at a gas station. The defendant is accused of
grabbing the victim by the neck and beating him with a Wheel jack.

Question 6:

The effectiveness of the defense attorneys may be evaluated by seeing how they perform and
analyzing the techniques they apply in the simulated Crown Court trial. The defense attorneys
may have the following strengths and weaknesses:
Strengths:

The defense attorneys may have excellent presenting abilities that help them convince the
jury of their side of the case. Their ability to present their case convincingly, persuade the
jury, and hold their interest is all part of this.

Cross-examination: Some defense attorneys may be particularly skilled at questioning

The defense attorneys might show off their knowledge of the law by carefully examining and
dissecting the prosecution's evidence. They may utilize their knowledge of the facts to either
prove their client's guilt or cast reasonable doubt on the case.

Competent defense attorneys should have an in-depth familiarity with applicable legislation
and case law. They can better prepare their case, raise any appropriate objections, and watch
out for their client's interests in court.

Weaknesses:

Defense attorneys may find it difficult to adequately communicate with and prepare their
witnesses in an online trial due to the limited access they have to them. This may make it
more difficult to deliver a unified and compelling defense.

Problems with connection and other technical aspects of virtual trials have the potential to
impede the defense's capacity to successfully cross-examine witnesses and interrupt the flow
of the prosecution's case. These technological issues may reduce the defense's overall
efficiency.

In a virtual situation, it may be more difficult to pick up on nonverbal signs like body
language, facial emotions, and physical presence. As a result, it may be more difficult for
defense attorneys to read the room and change their strategy appropriately.

Virtual trials may lack the presence and dynamism of traditional trials since defense attorneys
cannot physically be present in the courtroom. This may make it harder for them to connect
with the audience and tell an engaging story.
Part Two

Question 1

The whole Oakervee investigation report was submitted to the government on October 15,
2019. The Prime Minister made the announcement in the House of Parliament on 11 February
2020, signaling the government's willingness to go ahead with the project.

The Prime Minister has said that HS2 would bring about "massive economic benefits," such
as more job opportunities, higher productivity, and the spread of economic growth from the
North to the Midlands. The favorable environmental effect of the project and its role in
assisting the government in reaching its objective of no net carbon emissions until the year
2050 were also highlighted.

Concerns about the cost of HS2 and the prospect of future price increases have been heard
and acknowledged by the Prime Minister. He pledged that these issues will be resolved by
increased government oversight and management of the project.

The decision to go on with HS2 was based on the Oakervee evaluation's findings that the
work should be executed in its entirety. The various benefits of HS2, such as better
connectivity, increased capacity, and economic growth, were acknowledged in the study. The
assessment highlighted the project's potential benefits to the environment4.

Two among the risks and obstacles identified in the review were the project's complexity and
the potential for cost overruns. However, it discovered that these issues could be resolved
with effective management and direction.

The Oakervee report recommended a number of changes to improve HS2 delivery, including
the formation of a dedicated ministerial monitoring committee, the appointment of a
dedicated HS2 minister, or the implementation of tougher governance mechanisms. The
government has committed to implementing these recommendations.

4
Video scenarios paul A Fisher, Rob F Cooper, Jill Meara and Chris Packham’ (2015) Practising Public Health, pp.
116–195. doi:10.1201/b19008-14.

On October 15, 2019, the government received the Oakervee report. On February 11, 2020, the Prime Minister
highlighted HS2's "massive economic benefits" as well as its role in meeting the government's 2050 no net
carbon emissions objective. The Prime Minister promised more government control to address HS2 cost
concerns. The Oakervee study advised HS2's full implementation due to its advantages, including connectivity
and economic development.
An important aspect in the government's decision to go ahead with HS2 was the Oakervee
evaluation's finding that the project should be undertaken in full due to its tremendous
economic and environmental benefits. The government also recognized the challenges and
risks of HS2 and pledged to take action to address them.

Question 2

The 2019 Oakervee assessment took place in the months of September and October.
Everything about HS2 was analyzed, from the business justification to the costs and
advantages to the schedule for completion. Local governments, corporations, and
environmental organizations all contributed to the approximately 2,000 comments submitted
to the study. The report, titled "High Fast Second, A Review of the British Government High
Speed Rail Programme," was submitted to the government in November of 2019.

The report finds that "the potential environmental, social, adding financial benefits of HS2
were significant," and that "it is clear that the current version of HS2 is the most effective
way for achieving the government's goals."

The research did note problems with the undertaking's management and delivery, however,
and offered many solutions.

After considering the report's results and suggestions, the government announced on 11
February 2020 that it would proceed with the HS2 project. The Prime Minister justified HS2
in a statement to Parliament, saying that "the case behind HS2 is compelling" and that it "will
deliver enhanced connectivity, create jobs, and drive economic development throughout the
entire country."

Mr. Packham claims in his petition seeking judicial review that the government's choice to
continue moving forward with HS2 construction despite the hazards to the environment and
the release of greenhouse gases should be reversed. He says that the government failed to
properly assess the project's potential climate change and environmental impacts in violation
of the Paris Agreement and the climate change legislation of 2008.

The Divisional Court announced its ruling on 6 April 2020, rejecting Mr. Packham's claim the
the basis that it was late and that his arguments lacked validity. The court emphasized that it
was not charged with making a value judgment on the HS2 project, but rather with
determining whether or not the government's decision was in line with the constitution.
Mr. Packham feels he has a genuine claim on the basis of grounds 2 and 3b, thus he is
appealing this Divisional Court's verdict. He argues that the government's choice to go on
with the HS2 construction is illegitimate and that the court failed to give the arguments
presented in this case enough consideration.

Our job as a Court of Appeal is to go through the case and assess whether the Divisional
Court made the right judgment. Next, we'll analyze the legal and factual arguments presented
by both sides and go into the specifics of Mr. Packham's claim.

Question 3

Between August 2019 to October 2019, Mr. Oakervee presided over the review's panel,
which also included nine additional experts. A tiny secretariat in the Transportation
Department helped them out. The assessment took into account a mountain of data, including
input from several interested parties, and commissioned numerous papers and studies to back
up its conclusions. On 11 February 2020, a report entitled "HS2: A Review on High-Speed 2"
was released for public consumption. The panel's conclusions and suggestions are detailed
therein. Chapter 4 provides a summary of the report's main conclusions, while Chapter 5
details the report's recommendations. The research finds that HS2 should be maintained
because of its strategic significance. It also includes suggestions on how the project's
management and oversight should be improved.

On 11 February 2020, the Prime Minister declared in the House from Commons that the
government will be moving on with the HS2 project after accepting the conclusions and
suggestions provided by the Oakervee study. He said the project is "crucial" for increasing
nationwide connectivity and capacity and will have major positive effects on the economy
and the environment benefits5. Legal challenge presented to overturn the government's choice
to go on with the HS2 project, Mr. Packham filed a court review on March 27, 2020. His first
claim form included four reasons for his claim, but he later revised them. The revised
justifications are as follows:
5
https://centralchambers.co.uk/high-court-finally-recognises-the-crumbling-of-the-criminal-
justice-system-and-gives-the-date-it-will-become-systemic/

Mr. Oakervee supervised a nine-expert HS2 project appraisal in August–October 2019. A modest Transportation
Department secretariat reviewed massive data and stakeholder responses. "HS2: A Review in High-Speed 2"
released the panel's findings and recommendations on February 11, 2020. Chapter 4 outlines the report, while
Chapter 5 makes recommendations. The study suggests project monitoring and management improvements
and supports HS2's strategic importance. After adopting the Oakervee study's findings and recommendations,
the Prime Minister confirmed in Parliament that HS2 would proceed. Mr. Packham sued the government over
HS2 on March 27, 2020. He now blames a lack of comprehensive environmental effect study and local ecology.
First, we didn't do a proper strategic environmental impact study.

Second, there was insufficient consideration of the local ecology.

Argument 3a: We didn't think about how HS2 will affect emissions of greenhouse gases
between now and 2050.

As for the third and final reason, the government did not take into account the impact of HS2 on emissions of
greenhouse gases in light of its responsibilities under the terms of the Paris Agreement or the climate change
legislation of 2008.

Mr. Packham also requested a preliminary injunction to halt the felling of trees in six old
growth forests to make room for the HS2 project. On April 3, 2020, the Divisional Court
reviewed the claim and denied both the request for judicial review as the request for
temporary restraining order. The court concluded that the claim was untimely and should be
rejected for that reason alone. It also dismissed all four of the claim's bases, finding that there
was no chance of victory on the merits. The court stressed that it could only rule on the
legality of the government's choice and had no authority to evaluate HS2 on its own merits.

Mr. Packham requested leave to appeal and a "rolled-up" hearing to resolve the matter
quickly. Lewison L.J. approved the application on May 19, 2020, and we heard the appeal on
July 8 and 9, 2020. Both the Divisional Court's consideration of grounds 2 including 3b of the
claim, and its decision that the claim hadn't been filed in a timely manner, are under review.
We must also determine whether or not to uphold the Divisional Court's denial of permission
to seek judicial review or the application of an interim injunction.

Question 4

Hillingdon London Borough Council v. Secretary of State for Transport, a case filed by the
municipality over the HS2 project, has been decided. A separate lawsuit challenging the
government's decision to go forward with the HS2 project has been launched by
environmental campaigner Christopher Packham. The Court is very plain that it is not
judging the proposal on its own merits but rather determining if the Government's selection
was proper.

The HS2 proposal, which aims to build a high-speed railway between London and either
Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds, is detailed by the court. The project may go ahead with
building on a portion of it after gaining legislative approval. While Hillingdon Council is
challenging a single approval decision, Christopher Packham is challenging the government's
decision to go forward with the project as a whole.

The court is aware that the Divisional Court has already dismissed Mr. Packham's application
for permission to pursue judicial review and an interim injunction. Mr. Packham's other
grounds of his claim are now under consideration by the court. These include the
Government's allegedly inadequate evaluation of local environmental issues and greenhouse
gas impacts. emissions within its decision-making process6. Hillingdon London Borough
Council v. Secretary of State for Transport, a case filed by the municipality over the HS2
project, has been decided. A separate lawsuit challenging the government's decision to go
forward with the HS2 project has been launched by environmental campaigner Christopher
Packham. The Court is very plain that it is not judging the proposal on its own merits but
rather determining if the Government's selection was proper.

The HS2 proposal, which aims to build a high-speed railway between London and either
Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds, is detailed by the court. The project may go ahead with
building on a portion of it after gaining legislative approval. While Hillingdon Council is
challenging a single approval decision, Christopher Packham is challenging the government's
decision to go forward with the project as a whole.

The court is aware that the Divisional Court has already dismissed Mr. Packham's application
for permission to pursue judicial review and an interim injunction. Mr. Packham's other
grounds of his claim are now under consideration by the court. These include the
Government's allegedly inadequate evaluation of local environmental issues and greenhouse
gas impacts. Question 5

Summary of the decision in R. (on the petition for Packham) v. Secretary for State for
Transport (2020) EWCA Civ 1008. The government's choice to go on with the HS2 fast
speeds train project was challenged in this case. Christopher Packham, the plaintiff, alleged
that the federal government had not given enough thought to the project's impact on the
environment and greenhouse gas emissions. Divisional Court's dismissal of the claim for

6
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/06/27/the-criminal-bar-on-strike-9-things-you-need-to-
know/

Christopher Packham is suing the government's HS2 project, claiming poor environmental and greenhouse gas
assessments. The Divisional Court denied Packham's request for judicial review or an interim injunction.
Packham's additional claims are under review. Hillingdon Council's separate challenge against one approval
decision was decided. The court's job is to rule on the government's choices, not HS2.
failure to comply with procedural deadlines and the fact that the government's action was not
illegal was affirmed. The court underscored that it was not there to evaluate HS2 on its own
merits but rather to rule on whether or not the government had behaved illegally. The verdict
includes an extensive background on the HS2 project including the legal procedures that led
to its green light. The conclusions of the government-commissioned Oakervee evaluation of
the project are also discussed. When deciding whether or not to let HS2 construction to
continue, the court concluded that the government has adequately considered environmental
considerations and duties within the Paris Agreement or the Climate Change Act of 2008.

Question 6

Hillingdon the London Borough Council while Christopher Packham challenged the
government's choice to go through with the HS2 project in court, and the court has already
issued its ruling. The court emphasizes that it is not its responsibility to provide a value
judgment on the project, but rather to rule on the legality of the decision to go forward. The
court lays out the questions it must decide, such as whether or not the government gave
enough consideration to local environmental concerns or the effect the project would have on
greenhouse gas emissions. The project's origins and the relevant legislative procedures are
outlined by the court. The Oakervee assessment, which the government commissioned to
evaluate the project and give suggestions, is also discussed by the court. The scope of the
evaluation is laid out, and it will entail looking at things like how much money the project
will make and how other transportation options compare.

Part 3

The defendant is facing charges of assault leading to real bodily injury, a common law
violation. The prosecution must show that the defendant acted willfully or deliberately in
causing the victim's physical injury. After an argument about the volume of the music coming
from the defendant's car, the defendant allegedly attacked and assaulted the victim, resulting
in serious injuries. The government's case is that the defendant used illegal force, with the
purpose to cause harm to the victim. Self-defense and intentional provocation are possible
arguments for the defense to make. The jury will make the ultimate judgment.

The judge in the case being seen is noted as being tech-savvy and comfortable with using
virtual courtroom protocols. They emphasize that the trial's legitimacy depends on everyone
involved playing by the rules. The judge seems to have an objective perspective, putting the
utmost weight on the facts presented in court. However, particular information regarding the
judge's personality and viewpoints is lacking.

There are 13 people on the jury in this case, but neither their gender nor their race are known.
They are able to participate from afar because they are privy to digital tools like the web and
computers. The jury has freedom of choice about their service, and the judge emphasizes this.
Nobody knows for sure how old they are or what color they are.

It's possible that the defense attorneys in the case under observation excel in giving oral
arguments, conducting cross-examinations, analyzing the available evidence, and applying
their legal expertise. They could be experts at presenting their case, questioning witnesses,
analyzing evidence, and applying the law. However, they may have trouble adapting to the
virtual environment and speaking successfully with witnesses. Their usefulness might be
diminished by technical issues and a lack of nonverbal indications7.

Between the months of August and October of 2019, the Oakervee evaluation of the HS2
construction was carried out. A large body of information was taken into account by the
review panel, including comments from interested parties and commissioned papers and
studies. Review findings affirmed HS2's strategic value and supported its continuation;
suggestions for enhanced project management and monitoring were also made. The
government decided to go on with the HS2 project after accepting the review's findings and
recommendations. To challenge the government's decision, Mr. Packham sought judicial
review, citing environmental concerns and duties under the terms of the Paris Agreement and
the Climate Change Act of 2008. Mr. Packham's claim was rejected by the Divisional Court,
and he is now appealing the decision for additional reasons. The matter will be reviewed by
the Court of Appeal, which will then rule based on the merits of the arguments presented.

Bibliography

7
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/sep/26/judges-wrong-to-state-views-about-
barristers-strike-high-court-told

13 anonymous jurors may participate via digital means. Defense counsel may thrive in court but suffer online.
After examining many reasons, Oakervee backed the HS2 project. Mr. Packham is appealing the Court of Appeal
for more grounds after the Divisional Court dismissed his suit contesting the government's decision.
Articles

1. Smith, D.G. (1986) ‘British civil liberties and the law’, Political Science Quarterly,
101(4), pp. 637–660. doi:10.2307/2150798.
2. ‘Conclusion to law and Economics for Civil Law Systems’ (2021) Law and
Economics for Civil Law Systems, pp. 471–472. doi:10.4337/9781788118262.00022.
3. ‘Introduction to law and Economics for Civil Law Systems’ (2021) Law and
Economics for Civil Law Systems, pp. 1–26. doi:10.4337/9781788118262.00009.
4. ‘Video scenarios paul A Fisher, Rob F Cooper, Jill Meara and Chris Packham’ (2015)
Practising Public Health, pp. 116–195. doi:10.1201/b19008-14.

Websites

1. https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/06/27/the-criminal-bar-on-strike-9-things-you-
need-to-know/
2. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/sep/26/judges-wrong-to-state-views-about-
barristers-strike-high-court-told
3. https://centralchambers.co.uk/high-court-finally-recognises-the-crumbling-of-the-
criminal-justice-system-and-gives-the-date-it-will-become-systemic/

YouTube

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_UdgtlwQTA
2. https://www.youtube.com/@courtofappeal-civildivisio388/videos