Remote hearings - practice and learning from Australia and New Zealand: research findings

Main Points

• Australia and New Zealand jurisdictions both switched to remote hearings in response to the pandemic.
• Although the use of remote hearings enabled "justice to be done" during the COVID emergency, they were considered inaccessible to significant sections of the population. Further some hearings were considered un suited to remote practice.
• Commentators advised caution before their use became the norm.

Issues to consider with regard to remote hearings:

• Accessibility for remote hearings to be fair, participants need access to:
  • A computer or smart phone,
  • A reliable browser,
  • A strong stable internet connection,
  • A microphone and camera,
  • The skills necessary to use all of the above.
• Symbolism and rituals (for example, bowing to the Judge) can be lacking which could impact on the delivery of justice but equally could make court hearings more inclusive.
• Open justice could be enhanced by remote hearings as it could enable the press and the public to attend more easily BUT only where live streaming occurs.
• Efficiency and productivity are promoted by remote hearings but this should be weighed up against access, integrity and equality issues.
• Technology - as it improves, so willremote hearings.
• Preferences - Victims and witnesses, may prefer NOT being in the same room as the accused but on the other hand some may want the right to confront the accused.
• The accused's right to comprehend and participate may be compromised in remote hearings.

Advice from participants (lay and professional)

• Video is better than audio only.
• Participants from rural areas may be less likely to have stable internet connection than urban participants.
• There is a need to ensure that the Judge co-ordinates the entire proceedings.