I’ve always found the criminal justice system deeply interesting, and when I came across CourtWatch London, it immediately stood out to me as something quite special. Where I’m from (Hong Kong), it’s quite unusual for members of the public to observe court hearings regularly, so the idea of being able to sit in and witness real cases felt both novel and exciting.
I believe courtwatching could play a vital role in promoting transparency and accountability within the justice system. It allows members of the public to observe how justice is delivered and how individuals are treated throughout the process. Many people who appear in court face challenges such as poverty, language barriers, or mental health difficulties. Without public scrutiny, there is a risk that fairness and dignity may be compromised by routine, pressure, or unconscious bias.
One such case that stood out to me was a woman who appeared in the magistrates’ court over the non-payment of a court-imposed fine. Prior to the hearing, the defendant – who had a long-standing history of depression and anxiety, and was on medication – was instructed to complete a financial means form. Given her mental health condition, it was questionable whether she fully understood the relevance of the form to her case or had the capacity to accurately detail her financial outgoings without assistance.
Unfortunately, the court appeared to rely heavily on a single entry in the form – £20 monthly spending on clothing – to dismiss her claim of financial hardship. No attempt was made by the bench to explore her mental health or broader financial circumstances before rejecting her proposal to pay £5 per month. Instead, the bench questioned her in a manner that seemed dismissive and lacking in empathy, asking why she could not work in a supermarket despite her ongoing mental health treatment, and suggesting she could afford to pay £20 monthly if she cut her clothing expenses entirely.
These comments demonstrated a troubling disregard for the complexity of the defendant’s situation. The tone was unkind and implied that her mental health challenges were not reason enough to be lenient. The bench’s line of questioning failed to acknowledge the barriers faced by people with mental health conditions, and seemed to reflect a lack of understanding of the defendant’s lived experience.
It was only after the duty solicitor intervened and requested a brief adjournment that the defendant was supported to articulate her circumstances more fully. With prompting, she explained her history of financial abuse, her deteriorating mental health, reliance on Universal Credit, and that she was already overdrawing her bank account to meet basic living costs. Following this, the court agreed to reduce the fine by half.
This exchange highlighted both a missed opportunity and a systemic issue: had the bench shown more active inquiry or compassion earlier, the relevant context could have emerged without the solicitor’s intervention. The initial approach reflected a troubling presumption of disbelief towards the defendant’s account and failed to meet the standard of fair and considerate treatment.
By observing hearings like these and learning how such cases are processed, we gain valuable insights into the reasoning behind sentencing decisions and the expectations placed on the public. I’ve seen firsthand that court outcomes can hinge on small, often overlooked factors: the defendant’s ability to explain themselves clearly, the mood or tone of the bench, a forgotten document, or lack of clarity around procedure. Many defendants are self-represented, anxious, and unfamiliar with the legal process, yet are expected to make decisions on the spot.
To push for real and meaningful change, we must start with evidence: consistent, factual observations that highlight systemic patterns and areas in need of reform. Courtwatching is a quiet but powerful act of civic engagement that keeps the justice system visible and, ultimately, answerable to the public it serves.
This blog was written by volunteer courtwatcher Michael Yu.
