> “ Amnesty International had requested access to the court for a trial monitor to observe the hearings, but the court denied us a designated seat in court. Our monitor initially did get permission to access the technology to monitor remotely, but the morning the hearing started he received an email informing us that the Judge had revoked Amnesty International’s remote access.”
"Magistrate Baraitser then made a statement about access to the court by remote hearing, by which she meant online. She stated that a number of access details had been sent out by mistake by the court without her agreement. She had therefore revoked their access permissions."
When I read this, I thought that only certain people had their remove access revoked, for instance Amnesty International. But then he goes on...
"Baraitser went on to say that it was important that the hearing was public, but she should only agree remote access where it was 'in the interests of justice', and having considered it she had decided it was not. She explained this by stating that the public could normally observe from within the courtroom, where she could control their behaviour. But if they had remote access, she could not control their behaviour and this was not in the 'interests of justice'."
That sounds to me like _everyone's_ remote access had been revoked.
[0]: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...
For example, taking photographs in court, or in this case taking screenshots of court remotely.
> why is remote access still possible for other trials?
It's done on a case by case basis by the judge(s) involved in the case. It's not an automatic right.
"If Amnesty International and other observers wanted to attend the hearing, they would have to queue for one of the four seats available in a public gallery."
I believe the gallery seats 40 but only four are available because of their rules on social distancing.
My understanding is that observers would need to have either one of the four available seats in the public gallery or a seat in the "overflow" rooms next to the court. Please note that the audio in the overflow room is reportedly very poor, what little I've read made it sound unreliable.
If some observers were allowed remote access, I think that is important.
They requested they get special status as "fair trial monitors". The judge said they get treated like everyone else.
They should have no better access than you or I. They are nobody - a group that got together to push their agenda. They have no standing in court different from any other member of the public.
They can monitor the trial without some special recognition.
No, their remote access request was denied. This is separate from any request for standing as an expert trial observer (which is a whole other can of worms).
It seems you only read the parts about physical access, and the point about space limitation might be valid in that case. But that part is merely a footnote. The real issue is the remote access being revoked.
This is truly alarming, to a much bigger scale, in this case.