Prison to Court Video Link Hearings

The Prison to Court Video Link (PCVL) system can be used to conduct remote hearings between prison and the Magistrates' or Crown Court.

The court simply dials up the prison, where the defendant is sat waiting in front of the camera at the allocated time - at least that's how it's meant to work. The courtroom is also equipped with a camera and microphones, so the defendant can see and hear what is going at that end.

The advantage of PCVL is that the defendant, who is either a serving prisoner or on remand, does not need to be physically produced at court, which makes these hearings easy and convenient for all concerned.

There are, however, circumstances where the court may still order the production of a defendant if it considers it necessary - e.g. a serving prisoner who needs to attend for trial.

As you might have heard on the grapevine, the prison estate is currently feeling the strain in terms of prisoner numbers. Because of that remand cases are being shipped far and wide across England and Wales, whereas normally they would be held at the nearest "local" prison (e.g. prison handling remand cases). This means the PCVL system is particularly useful and relevant at the moment.

A couple of weeks ago I was sat in the PCVL court and we dealt with a case of actual bodily harm. The defendant, who had been recalled to prison, was appearing for sentencing, him having previously admitted the offence and the Magistrates' Court having accepted jurisdiction.

He had been recalled a few weeks earlier to serve the remaining eight months of a two year sentence for domestic burglary. The defendant was a prolific thief but did not have a history of violence.

The prosecutor outlined the circumstances of the offence, which I don't need to dwell on other than to say it was one of lower culpability (C) and lesser harm (3) in terms of the relevant sentencing guideline. An offence of that nature would have a sentencing starting point of a medium level community order, with a sentencing range between a Band B fine and 26 weeks' custody.

Irrespective of the guidelines, the fact the defendant is a serving prisoner severely limits the sentencing options of the court. If the offence crosses the custody threshold, then they are given a custodial sentence concurrent to the one they are serving; if below the custody threshold they are given some sort of discharge. What the court can't do is "bump up" a non-custodial sentence to a custodial one for the sake of convenience.

Community orders, just as the name suggests, require the defendant to undergo punishment and rehabilitation within the community. They are not appropriate or feasible when a defendant is already in custody.

Fines are not appropriate either, as the court generally likes offenders to have a clean slate on their release rather than saddling them with unnecessary debt. In any event, a serving prisoner could just apply to lodge any fine imposed by the court, effectively having it written-off by virtue of their custodial status.

Remember that the defendant in this case had been recalled for eight months, so the sentence imposed for this offence was totally irrelevant to him.

Ordinarily, had he been in the community, he would have been made subject to a community order. However, given his status we decided to impose a 12 month conditional discharge and ordered him to pay £200 compensation to the injured party. We decided not to impose the surcharge or prosecution costs, giving the compensation priority.

Anyhow, a week or so later news of the man's conviction appeared in the local newspaper. The report outlined the circumstances of the offence, but totally omitted the point that he was a serving prisoner when he was sentenced. You can imagine the furore on social media when people read about the conditional discharge.

Just goes to reinforce the importance of complete and accurate court reporting.