Previous Document
3.9. Some lessons from existing systems
There are some general observations which may be drawn even from this
incomplete survey of existing systems and experience. First, there seems
little reason to think that Australian jurisdictions (or at least some of
them) are lagging significantly behind comparable overseas jurisdictions in
terms of the sophistication of court technologies that are employed.
Utilisation of information technology in complex trials, and in court systems
generally, seems to be very uneven in all jurisdictions, and the use of
technologies such as document imaging is generally as sophisticated here as
anywhere else.
Second, we have not found any compelling model in other jurisdictions of how
to integrate the use of information technology in all aspects of complex
trials. The systematic approaches taken in South Australia and Western
Australia are models as valuable as any we have found. In each case, careful
planning and development has been at least as important as the differing
software and hardware chosen to build their systems. They should be used as
valuable guides for development in other jurisdictions rather than as
solutions to be duplicated.
Third, the systematic approach taken to the dissemination of information about
court technologies by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts
and the National Center for State Courts in the USA has no counterpart in
Australia or, it seems, elsewhere. This is addressed in Chapter 8.
Fourth, high level judicial involvement and direction is [PP51]
exceptionally valuable in establishing integrated court systems,
as the experience of Western Australia and South Australia shows,
and as others recognise (eg Hogarth (1990)).
Fifth, systems being installed and used in courts are increasingly able to
deliver both images and text, as is shown in the experience of Western
Australia's Rothwells trial and the New Zealand Equiticorp trial. This is
addressed in Chapter 5.
[PP52]
[PP53]
Next Document