In a survey for Bond Solon - a leading training organisation for expert witnesses - more than 40 per cent of witnesses who had been cross-examined in a remote session stated that barristers are less aggressive than when in the courtroom.

Mark Solon - the solicitor-founder of the organisation - stated:

“It is more difficult for the cross-examining lawyer to control the flow of the courtroom encounter online.”

He added that barristers “may also have found aggressive courtroom dramatics do not actually work online. A booming voice, intimidating stare or a look of disbelief appear silly on a small screen.”

He went on to warn that in the future, advocates “may need a more forensic approach and find more screen-appropriate methods of disconcerting a witness to discredit their evidence. They will need new online advocacy skills and experts will have to keep up.”

Of those who had given oral evidence online, it was found that approximately half thought that it was given as much significance as when in a live hearing.

Mark Solon speculated that the drawbacks of technology may have added to increased attention, remarking:

“This may be because a judge or jury needs to be very attentive as the image of the witness is in two dimensions and looks much smaller than when seen in person in the courtroom, and the sound may not be as clear.”

Courtroom experts are unwavering in their desire for improvements in the digital revolution in the courts if it is to continue without damaging justice.

Mark Solon added:

“It is crucial that the technology used by courts is of high quality so those involved can hear and see clearly. Interruptions by an impatient cross-examining lawyer also appear ruder on a TV monitor, and lawyers may have learnt to be silent as a witness speaks, and this could give the impression to the witness that their evidence is given greater weight.”

According to the survey, experts said that – in terms of lower costs and greater convenience – the use of remote hearings are an advantage. Over 60 per cent of expert witnesses reported conducting roughly half of their work remotely during the pandemic and Mark Solon describes that as a “seismic shift from before Covid. It has implications for how investigations and examinations are conducted, how instructions are taken and how evidence is given.”

He stated:

“This also means that the time saved can allow the expert to have more time for their day job and the ability to take more instructions.”