This is a good question. Coverage of this trial has been hard to come by. Craig Murray is posting details to his blog but he's also not the most objective witness. Still, he wrote the following[0]:
"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That sounds to me like _everyone's_ remote access had been revoked.
As a counterbalance - reporting restriction from court are highly regulated in the UK. If a person breaks the regulations it is easy to deny them access the next day. No so easy on remote access, hard to control/prosecute contempt of court.
Invalid counterbalance, in my opinion, when the conduct of the government is in question. This seems to be the most pathetically awkward attempt to close a hearing without outright admitting it that I've ever witnessed.
There are only four seats available in the public gallery, I believe. In the posted article Amnesty International states:
"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.
I would be interested to read anything that confirms that some observers have been allowed to view the proceedings remotely.
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.
>We've made 3 applications requesting recognition as expert fair trial monitors. Judge states that no 'special provision' will be made for our trial monitor's attendance,”
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.
> “ 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).
You are factually wrong. Amnesty was granted remote access, and it was revoked. This has not happened to many other public observers.
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.
Actually, around 40 other public observers from across Europe had the same access granted and then revoked. Many of them were from other countries, happy not to need to travel during the pandemic, and they woke up the morning of the first day to discover their access revoked.
So you’re saying the humanitarian problem is even bigger than just Amnesty International. Not even other international observers can see whether the trial is fair.
This is truly alarming, to a much bigger scale, in this case.
