Previous Document

of the effective use of information technology. We proceed on the        [PP6]
assumption that a special regime will not be created for serious fraud
offences, but that special procedures will be available for all complex
trials. Our Recommendations can easily be adapted to the narrower approach.


Measuring 'complexity'


Various measures of a complex criminal trial have been advanced, and of
measures of complexity which justify various uses of computerisation. Given
that the purposes of definition are often different, it is not surprising that
no generally accepted measure has emerged. Meagher (1988) suggested that a
complex criminal fraud trial was one not likely to be completed in less than
20 sitting days, with not less than 100 folios of documentary evidence, not
less than 50 witnesses (some being remote from the place of trial),
contentious and complex issues of fact and law (including difficult financial
transactions), and more than one defendant. While these conditions are
certainly sufficient, it is doubtful that they are all necessary before a
trial is 'complex'. The United Kingdom Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE
Act) does not define 'serious or complex fraud', and Aronson (1992) recommends
that 'complex' should not be defined (Recommendation 10).

Others have provided various measures of when use of information technology is
justified or should be required. Bowsher (1991) considers it reasonable that
'where more than 1,000 pages of documents are to be put before the Court' they
should be provided in computerised form. Staudt and Keane (1992) 1:07
consider that the falling prices of hardware and software make it conceivable
that 'any case with 50 or more documents or a few hundred pages of
transcript' may well be suitable. While it may be difficult to devise any
general measure of when a criminal trial is 'complex', or when the use of
information technologies are appropriate, caution is justified. Inappropriate
use can give rise to an alternative definition of a complex trial: 'one to
which information technology is applied'.


Significant differences from other criminal proceedings


The handling of large numbers of case files, summonses, verdicts, orders, etc,
and subsequent storage of them, presents considerable registry problems. These
problems loom largest for courts dealing with minor matters. For such courts,
access to sentencing systems and to criminal record systems is very important
because of the regularity with which access is required. Computerised access
to legal research facilities is important to any court. These registry,
research and other uses are important to any court dealing with criminal
matters, and require consideration in relation to complex trials because some
computer facilities used to deal with the 'complex' aspects of a trial may
also need to be used for the more mundane ones. They are therefore discussed
briefly in Chapter 3. Which uses of information technology are particular to
complex trials is only a matter of degree. Many criminal trials falling
outside the definition of a 'complex criminal trial' could benefit from the
use of at least some aspects of information technology other than
'registry' matters, including computerised transcripts, and the provision of
projection facilities.


Significant differences from civil matters


Bowsher (1991) identifies two differences between civil and criminal
trials which are relevant to the use of information technology. First,
most if not all documents produced in court in a criminal trial come
from the prosecution.  Second, the special duties of the prosecution to
allow discovery of documents is not reciprocated by the
defence because of the privilege against self

                                                            Next Document