End of the dock as we know it

JUSTICE, the all-party law reform and human rights organisation, has called for the dock to be abolished, submitting that a defendant’s right to a fair trial is infringed.

The word ‘dock’ as it pertains to a courtroom, came into usage in this country in rogues and beggars slang in the early 1500s. It most likely found its origins in the Flemish word, ‘dok’. A dok was a cage or pen for animals. The etymology, then, may tell us all we need ?to know about the negative implications of the dock on ?the fairness of criminal proceedings.

As a criminal defence lawyer ?I am well accustomed to the layout of the criminal court, ?but have not previously ?given much thought to the defendant’s positioning and how the physical presence of ?a dock may influence our subconscious.

Nonetheless, a growing body of academic research demonstrates that the use ?of the dock impacts on fairness in the criminal trial and is disproportionate to any perceived threat. Since ?2000, the docks have become glass-walled boxes that project into the courtroom or ?open docks, depending ?on security needs.

Today, most courts have only secure docks, where defendants are placed whether or not ?they pose any risk. In its ?report, JUSTICE argues that the defendant’s right to a fair trial ?is prejudiced by the position ?in the dock. 

Effective participation is limited, as it physically distances the defendant from the judge and jury and inhibits communication with their legal team. It can also make it harder for the defendant to follow all of the evidence. 

I read with interest the suggestion that the presence of the defendant in the dock sets them apart as something different and possibly dangerous.

Does the dock, then, ?impact on the presumption of innocence? Research suggests that it does. A study in Australia has found compelling evidence to support the contention that when evidence is inconclusive, juries are far more likely to convict those in an open or secure dock rather than those sitting with their lawyer. 

In the US and the Netherlands the defendant sits next to their advocate, and the actual occurrence of security incidents has been found to be negligible. JUSTICE recommends that the defendant should sit with their lawyer, so that they can confer and he or she can play an active part in proceedings – this would also remove any subliminal bias based on their position in the courtroom. 

In addition, the report suggests that where there is ?a potential risk of violence or escape, the judge could consider an application for concealed restraints. Other security measures proposed include more security guards in the courtroom and, in high-risk cases, the jury could instead be separated from everyone else in court by a glass screen.

Matthew Reynolds is a specialist motor law solicitor at Just Motor Law, Kirwans @KirwansLaw www.kirwanssolicitors.co.uk