As we continue to struggle with the challenges to our justice systems wrought by a fast-spreading and stubborn virus combined with backlogged courts, most solutions to move cases forward have focused on technology. Similar to adjustments in the delivery of coursework in the education context, courts across the world have turned to remote access through information communication technologies such as Zoom, Skype, Microsoft Teams, and the Google platform to bring together judges, counsel, parties to legal actions, and even juries.[1] In a unique and more hybrid example, in Scotland this autumn, high-end audio and video communications will connect physically distanced legal personnel in courtrooms to physically distanced jurors spread out in local cinemas, with a large divided screen for jurors to view the proceedings and evidence.[2] A few of the advantages and the challenges of remote and hybrid styles of justice can serve to highlight some of the promise and the peril of relying more heavily on technological interfaces for court proceedings, even after the pandemic fears subside.
Advantages to entirely remote hearings and trials include a reduction in travel and “waiting around” time for all participants involved,[3] in addition to the convenience and comfort level of being in one’s own space. Additionally, the efficiency of online proceedings might allow quicker access to justice as well as a simpler process for parties who are new to the court system.[4] Challenges include the now-familiar online session interruptions by pets, family members, and technology failures, as well as a perceived lack of engagement among online participants. We also see the potentially significant the loss of the face-to-face social aspect of courtrooms and hallways, that might have benefitted attorneys and their clients.[5] In some proceedings, concerns might arise regarding the ability to properly assess witness credibility as well as overall fairness of the remote format.
After we someday emerge from our current reality of required distancing, it will be interesting to see if sufficient benefits to the justice system warrant continued opportunities for remote and hybrid proceedings.
[1] See, e.g., J Croft, ‘Pandemic puts remote courtrooms on trial’ (Financial Times, ft.com, 10 June 2020) <https://www.ft.com/content/ed42e124-b92f-4ea4-bb58-f192e1db9f52> accessed 11 October 2020.
[2] J Rozenberg, ‘Trial by movie,’ (substack.com, 13 August 2020) <https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/trial-by-movie> accessed 11 October 2020.
[3] J Croft (n 1).
[4] Ibid, citing to R Susskind, ‘Online Courts and the Future of Justice,’ (2019) Oxford University Press.
[5] J Croft (n 1).