Recommendation 25

HM Government Rejected

We recognise that transcripts of court proceedings are not routinely accessible and there are a number of reasons for this. Not all court proceedings are recorded, therefore transcripts are simply not available in all courts (e.g. magistrates’ courts). In courts where it is possible to record and subsequently transcribe proceedings, this is done manually which incurs public expense to the applicant. Transcripts may also be made available at public expense at the discretion of a judge, when, for example, one of the parties does not have the financial means to pay for it. Transcripts are automatically made available only in certain types of serious criminal cases. Even where transcripts are available, the fact that proceedings are a matter of public record does not obviate the need for judicial discretion in authorising access to them. They may contain sensitive information and details which would be justifiably confidential, and the judge needs to exercise this control, in addition to quality control over the transcript itself. This discretion is ultimately aimed at protecting vulnerable parties and maintaining confidence in the justice system which could be undermined by the unrestricted disclosure of sensitive information. It is therefore appropriate that requests for transcripts, even when funded by members of the public, be subject to judicial determination. Automated transcription has the ability to lower the cost of transcription, but only when it can match the required level of accuracy that manual transcription currently offers. HMCTS undertook a pilot of speech-to-text software at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in 2020. This provided good insight as to the accuracy of technology and how it can be best utilised. Subject to future funding decisions, and in collaboration with the judiciary, the MoJ and HMCTS intend to run further pilots to understand how the technology works in different courtroom environments. Hearings in magistrates’ courts are not currently recorded. Consequently, large capital investment would be needed to add the required technology to courtrooms across England and Wales. Careful consideration would also have to be given to how HMCTS would resource this. Given these implications, we consider the routine recording and transcription of magistrates’ courts hearings to be disproportionate. However, we will seek stakeholders’ views on this during our aforementioned call for evidence later in 2023 and consider those, alongside the conclusions and recommendations in the JSC’s open justice report, before making any future decisions. Please see paragraphs 78 to 82 above.