Videoconferencing allows for the remote communication of a number of parties allowing for both visual and audio communication.
This technology is now widely being used in such areas as business. They have not been used as much in the legal domain due to the parties involved in a case relying on judgment to make there case and decisions. For a person to make good judgment, must be able to ‘read’ every participant in the case, such as eye contact, tone to gain a feeling for example if someone is telling the truth or not. This is probably the biggest issue with using videoconferencing in the courts. However minor cases and pre hearings such as bail would be perfect for such a system. The High Court has used this to some extent in these areas
However, technology these days is good enough to have perfect sounds and image. As well as this time and expenses are reduced in areas such as transportation, or sending Judges to different cities.
One such example where video conferencing would be extremely beneficial is particularly in the sparsely populated rural part of Australia. Cases could take place within police stations with communication access to the remote court room.
See The Future Of Courts - Do They Have One? by Hon Justice Michael Kirby Ac Cmg
created by Adam_Shell
The Victorian Law Reform Commission’s 1999 report into ‘Technology and the Law’(1) identifies uses for video-conferencing technology such as:
Savings in the Courts’ time as well as costs can be achieved through the use of video conferencing technologies. If the accused is in custody significant savings can be made through the elimination of transport costs and the extra personnel that are associated with them(2). There is also a reduction in the security threats posed by such transportation. The Courts’ time is saved by an elimination of the need to await the arrival of inmates. From the perspective of inmates, the process is less strenuous in terms of movement between locations and also allows for an expedited release following a hearing.
(1) Report of the Law Reform Commission of Victoria, Technology and the Law, May 1999, throughout paragraphs 10.22-10.23 (2) Wallace, A. Technology and the Judiciary: The Use of Technology in the Criminal Trial Process, Paper Presented at the 4th National Outlook Symposium on Crime in Australia, New Crimes or New Responses, Canberra 2001
Apart from bringing the courts to rural areas, video-conferencing or CCTV has also been used in cases involving vulnerable witnesses like children when testifying. A large majority of children who testify in court are victims of sexual assault or abuse, and surveys have shown that almost all child complainants were fearful of confronting the accused at trial. Having to face the accused is often a particularly traumatising experience, and the use of video conferencing instead of requiring the child to appear in person when giving evidence protects them from the this harsh process.
While in New South Wales the use of CCTV during the trial is inconsistent and child witnesses were not offered such protections in a number of cases, this can be contrasted with Western Australia where the use of CCTV is standard procedure and no child is required to confront the accused while testifying. Read about WA’s Child Witness Service.
edited by Vanessa
Cisco systems has unveiled a new videoconferencing tool named TelePresence. The new technology gives users the “look and feel” of being in an actual meeting. Existing conferencing tools tend to leave a detached feeling. This is the result of trying to speak and look in different directions. With the new Cisco system the goal is give a life-like atmosphere whereby participants feel like they are at the meeting table. Life-size imaging, ultra-high definition video and spatial sound all contribute to this effect. Whether or not this approach will be adopted by the Courts will depend on some of the “feel” issues mentioned above. However, even if these problems are alleviated, cost will likely be a problem. The version of Cisco’s TelePresence that would suit a court’s needs is $299,000 USD. With this price tag, it may be difficult for most court’s to justify a change.