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That sounds to me like _everyone's_ remote access had been revoked.

[0]: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-...

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.

What kinds of regulations could be broken and why is remote access still possible for other trials? What makes this one different?

> What kinds of regulations could be broken

For example, taking photographs in court, or in this case taking screenshots of court remotely.

> why is remote access still possible for other trials?

It's done on a case by case basis by the judge(s) involved in the case. It's not an automatic right.

Audio only, description of the evidence, binding agreements, etc. I really thought that there could be an unsolvable reason behind it.

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.

Amnesty has the same access as the rest of the public.

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.

No, the article explains their remote access was revoked (unlike many other public observers).

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).