A CCORDING TO ONE wag, Medway Magistrates Court in Chatham is “probably the only place in the town centre doing a brisk business”. Yet even here, footfall is dwindling. In a scruffy courtroom with breeze-block walls, the dock is empty. Defendants no longer appear in person; they give their answers from a police station via a video link. Magistrates direct their judgments towards two television screens. “Can you see us now, Mr Bird?” asks one. When one case finishes, a staff member dials the next police station. “I’m calling from the virtual court,” she says.

Such scenes were once unthinkable in England’s courtrooms, where magistrates can be called “your worship” and some judges sport gowns and wigs. But the agency that runs courts and tribunals in England and Wales plans to create what could be the world’s most digitised justice system by 2023. The number of physical hearings in civil and family courts and tribunals should fall from 2.6m to 1m a year. Some preliminary hearings in criminal courts will also go online. Selling under-used courts and cutting staff numbers by almost a third will free up cash to invest in new technology.

Most civil cases will be handled over the internet. Small claims, divorce and probate applications began to be digitised this year. Juries will still hear criminal trials in person, but administrative hearings beforehand—for example, to choose which witnesses to call—could be held by video. Chatham’s virtual court was part of a pilot of video-link bail hearings. Such hearings could be held with no one in court; judges might appear from their offices. Those who pleaded guilty online to minor offences, like fare-dodging, might have their sentence automatically determined, based on rules set by the judiciary. Citizens in Canada can already file civil claims online and video hearings are common in Australia, but this will be the first time these elements are combined on such a scale.

The reforms are controversial, particularly for their speed. In May a report by the National Audit Office, a spending watchdog, said that civil servants risked making dramatic changes before they had understood the consequences. Many think the plan is primarily intended to save money, not make justice more accessible. It should save the courts service £265m ($342m) a year from 2023-24, or roughly an eighth of its spending. Nor is the record of courtroom technology promising. In one case in Brighton, a defendant appearing by video link was handed a piece of paper reading “not guilty” when the court could not hear him. To plead guilty, he was told to cover up the word “not”.

Lawyers are keen on digitising paper systems and making arrangements by video, but they question the spread of virtual hearings. They worry that defendants will struggle to understand the process without the physical presence of a laywer, and could be tainted by association if they speak from a police station or prison rather than a courtroom. In an evaluation in 2010 of a video-link pilot, defendants were less likely to request a lawyer than those before ordinary courts, but three percentage points more likely to plead guilty. Ten per cent were handed a custodial sentence, compared with 7% of those in other courts. Solicitors reckoned some defendants might have been unwilling to wait around for a lawyer, who would probably do a better job than the defendant of presenting any mitigating factors. Some magistrates, meanwhile, reckon that video links lack the gravitas of a court.

Proponents of reform argue that the theatre of court is too intimidating for those accused of relatively minor crimes. Andrea Coomber of Justice, a charity, says lawyers are comfortable in court but “ordinary people feel pretty awful. They don’t understand the language and the rituals, whether they have a lawyer or not.” Lawyers who oppose the use of more technology have “skin in the game”, she points out: putting civil cases online ought to make it easier for people to represent themselves, cutting lawyers out of the process. The reforms will open up the civil-justice system to those who cannot afford a lawyer and do not qualify for legal aid, she says. Digitising simple processes ought to save everyone time and money. About 40% of paper divorce applications are returned because of mistakes; online, the error rate is 0.4%.

In the end, the public will probably determine the scale and pace of changes. Those who plead guilty to minor offences by post or online have the option to appear before a magistrate. Only about 4% do so. Prisoners loathe “sweatboxes”, as they call the vans that take them to hearings. Future generations will be more accustomed than their parents to interacting with the state online, and may be more willing to trade the chance to make their case in person for convenience. In a pilot of a tax tribunal by video link earlier this year, seven of eight hearings had some sort of technology glitch. But participants were still impressed by a system that saved them time and money. One appeared from Greece. Given the choice, folk increasingly might not want their day in court.