In the Hurricane Florence storm, a welcome moment of light relief came from one reporter over-egging its impact. The windswept reporter apparently struggles to stay upright feet as the storm threatens to knock him over. The only problem is that two men appear in shot behind him strolling past unfazed.

The opposite is the case for the courts service and its fervour for new technology: in front of the camera all appears calm, but they’re kidding nobody about the struggles in the background.

Last week’s response to a limited test of fully virtual hearings in the tax tribunal (analysed here by Joshua Rozenberg) showed a willful refusal to acknowledge the problems discovered. The press release gave the impression this was a near-faultless test, but this was far from the true picture found by independent researchers.

According to the press statement, the technical product will be improved and creators would now ensure the technology was ‘robust and reliable’.

Yet the report itself suggests a catalogue of technical issues that were never even mentioned.

For a start, the news release fails to point out this wasn’t a test of eight cases, it began as 11. Eight video hearings were completed, and three hearings experienced technology fails on the day; two of which were conducted as a telephone hearing and one which was rescheduled as a physical hearing.

One appellant had their video hearing cut out four times (although it was noted this didn’t appear to bother them), while seven of the eight cases completed remotely had to be paused due to technology problems. 

As a test of the fledgling system, this was low-hanging fruit: users were experienced with technology, cases were chosen based on their simplicity, and these tribunals are less contentious than most. When a majority of cases are delayed, and more than a quarter moved altogether, that should set alarm bells ringing.

This is not to say the technology won’t work one day. Nor would we expect HMCTS to top its press release with a string of problems encountered during testing. Teething issues are understandable and necessary to ensure the system works. I’ve no doubt that internally court bosses are not ignoring the issues.

But this transformation needs ‘buy-in’ from those using it, and to present such a misleading picture is almost insulting our intelligence. Either those in charge can’t acknowledge their difficulties, or they think we won’t notice. Either way, a little more honesty won’t do any harm.