Previous Document

in the Long Range Plan (1992) of the US Federal Courts, and in          [PP27]
papers by Erickson (1992); Ohlrich (1992); Bumsted (1992); Gund (1992);
Hogarth (1990) and Weis and Bermant (1987). United Kingdom developments are
outlined in Waugh (1992), and Australian developments in Greenleaf (1992)
and Fitzgerald (1992). Imaging technology is seen as a potential means to
reduce the storage and retrieval problems of old court records: see Plotnikoff
(1991), Graham and Townsend (1992), Chapter 8. The use of project management
software has been recommended for jury management: Branxton and
Munsterman (1992) 


Electronic Document Interchange


Electronic filing of court process documents has received considerable
attention in the United States in recent years. Electronic Data (or Document)
Interchange (EDI) refers to the computer to computer exchange of structured
information in recognised formats, and its use in the court context is
referred to in the USA as JEDI (Judicial EDI). In 1990 a Judicial edi
Consortium (sic) was established to develop standards for exchange of court
documents (Jedi Consortium (1991)). Graham and Townsend (1992) have
recommended that seminars be held between the Family Court and the legal
profession to establish the benefits and feasibility of JEDI in Australia
(Chapter 8). They also recommend the early introduction of fax filing of
documents in the Family Court. In Victoria, experiments have already taken
place in the use of computerised filing (see Greenleaf (1992)). Fitzgerald
(1992) reports that this is to be expanded.


Remote video presentation of evidence and argument


Weinberg (1991) outlines the importance and difficulty of taking foreign
evidence in complex fraud cases, and the inadequacies of current Australian
law in this respect. One part of the solution to the problem is to allow
witnesses outside the jurisdication, in appropriate circumstances, to give
evidence via video telecommunications links. Video is obviously preferable to
audio as a means of giving evidence because it allows all those involved to
see the demeanour of the witness and receive other non-verbal cues.

Aronson (1992) and the NSW Criminal Law Review Division Issues Paper (NSW CLRD
(1992)) both endorse provisions similar to those in Victoria's Crimes (Fraud)
Bill 1992, cl 20. This provision gives the Court a discretion to allow a
witness to give unsworn evidence from outside the State 'by means of
satellite, landline or other facilities' if attendance in person is not
necessary in the interests of justice and would involve unreasonable expense
or inconvenience. Sub-clause (2) provides:

   (2) Any place from where a witness is permitted to give evidence under
   this section must be taken to be part of the courtroom while the
   witness is there for the purpose of giving evidence.
   
We agree with Aronson (1992) that there is no reason to limit the scope of
this clause to fraud trials, as it would clearly be of benefit in other types
of complex trials and other proceedings. The likelihood of such video evidence
being received in complex trials reinforces our general argument in this
section that potential for multi-function use must be a major consideration in
any decisions concerning the installation of monitors, networking and other
infrastructure in courts. Although it will often be practical for the court to
adjourn to a commercial 'tele-conferencing centre' so that judge and counsel
can appear in video before the witness, this may not always be practical where
a jury is involved.


                                                            Next Document