Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Graham Greenleaf and Andrew Mowbray A version of this article appeared in the Australian Law Journal, `Information Technology & the Law' column (1993
Introduction
Information Technology in Complex Criminal Trials is intended to complement the Report by Professor Mark Aronson Managing Complex Criminal Trials: Reform of Evidence and Procedure (AIJA, 1992). The Report commences with surveys of the key technologies in complex trials - free text retrieval of transcript, document summary databases, document image retrieval and presentation graphics - and the progress that has been made in utilising these technologies in various Australian and overseas jurisdictions. It then examines each of these technologies and their use and potential benefits in complex trials in some detail, as well as the procedural and evidentiary reforms needed to ensure effective use. It concludes with an examination of the improvements in communication, education and the setting of standards needed for more effective use of court technologies. A Bibliography lists over 200 books and articles on Court computerisation. The 140 page Report makes 58 recommendations concerning these matters, and the purpose of this article is to summarise their thrust. Given the subject matter of the Report, it is appropriate that it is the first AIJA publication to be published in computerised form, as well as print. The Report on disk can be searched with free text retrieval and browsed in hypertext using the DataLex Workstation Software, provided by the Report's authors to the AIJA for this purpose.
also including the difficulties of simplifying complex evidence, and the inadequacy of document handling systems. The Aronson Report addresses the procedural and evidentiary causes. In the absence of hard evidence of the relative importance of these contributing causes, estimates of the extent to which information technology can alleviate the problem must be speculative. Although it is possible to identify how information technology will alleviate a specific contributing problem, the overall significance of doing so must await further empirical study. The Report recommends a follow-up study of the lessons and costbenefits of the use of information technology in selected complex trials such as the Equiticorp trial in New Zealand and the ongoing Rothwells trial in Western Australia.
The Report recommends that all agencies involved in complex trials should consider implementing image storage and retrieval of documentary exhibits, and the integration of such document imaging with text retrieval of transcript. Government agencies responsible for court administration should establish at least one courtroom in a State or Territory which is equipped fully to conduct such trials. The court-provided facilities should include at least all necessary monitors and cabling, devices to control the distribution of images, and devices to capture and distribute images of exhibits as presented. The Report also recommends, as a matter of priority, that the key Commonwealth agencies involved in the investigation and prosecution of complex crime (the Commonwealth DPP, the Australian Securities Commission and the National Crime Authority) should coordinate their use of software, database design, and text and image formats for document control, free text retrieval, and image retrieval, to ensure that there is sufficient compatibility to enable prosecuting agencies to be presented with a 'computerised brief' by investigative agencies. In doing so these agencies should be involved in, and take account of, the development of national standards concerning these matters (discussed below).
tools are chosen are appropriate and well used. Too little is known about the exact effects of any types of presentation techniques on juries for there to be any certainty that the most sophisticated technology will be the most effective.
efficient conduct of a trial, and should include explicit provision for the court to determine, as a matter of procedure, the form in which documents will be provided to the court, including any computerised form. In relation to computer-generated graphics, the Report recommends the adoption of reforms concerning charts and summaries (such as Aronson's Recommendations 12-14) to ensure that they are admissible. A provision such as cl 33 of the Commonwealth Evidence Bill 1991 (which gives the Court a discretion to require evidence to be presented in a summary form, and to provide copies of that summary to other parties) is desirable in relation to computer graphics. When exercising discretion to admit, the court should take into account the extent to which any lack of access by the other parties to the computerised data and software used in generating the summaries may lead to that evidence having prejudicial, misleading or unfair tendencies or qualities.
graphic summaries of evidence in computerised form, but this is also an area where considerable caution is warranted.
A proposed new role for the AIJA - education and communication in court technologies
The Report concludes that a national co-ordinating body is needed to disseminate information, experience and advice concerning the use of information technology by those involved in criminal trials. Subject to its obtaining sufficient funds to do so, the Report recommends that the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA) should act as the co-ordinating body. An Information Technology Committee (IT Committee) of the AIJA, with suitably diverse membership, could provide the appropriate representative structure for all of the parties involved in the provision of court facilities and the conduct of trials. A small Information Technology Service (IT Service) should also be established as part of the national co-ordinating body, to carry out all of its recommended functions, except the development of standards, on which matter it would instead provide expert advice. It should be established with a limited duration (preferably three years) after which the need for the continuation of each of its services should be re-assessed. The Report recommends a wide range of functions for the IT Service, many of which are already being carried out by the two analogous bodies in the United States, the National Centre for State Courts (NCSC) and the Office of Automation and Technology of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The IT Service should operate, for all parties involved in Court computerisation: a national collection of both international and Australian resources on Court computerisation; a central register of products/technologies available to address specific problems of Court computerisation, including details of where they may be inspected in operation; and a national central register of specialist consultants, their experience, products supported, reference sites, etc. These should be searchable from anywhere in Australia, by inclusion as databases in a dial-up system, or by distribution on disk or CD-ROM. The IT Service should also publish regular and detailed publications about court computerisation, run an annual or biennial specialised conference, operate an electronic `bulletin board' service for use by all users of court technologies, and encourage regular meetings for key personnel involved in court computerisation and user groups for technologies with significant use in courts. Law schools have a role to play. The IT Service should cooperate with one or more Law Schools to utilise computer laboratories for demonstration, teaching and research in the use of court technologies. Such court technology laboratories should, where possible, be integrated with Law School Moot Courts to demonstrate technologies in a courtroom setting. The IT Service should assist the Association of Litigation Support Managers, and other interested parties, to develop one or more standard sets of data relating to complex trials, so as to facilitate demonstration, teaching or research into the use of document management technologies. It should publicise and assist in distributing the standard data sets. The development of courses on computerised litigation support (particularly post-graduate courses) by tertiary institutions, and of continuing legal education courses, should be encouraged and assisted. The IT Service should only provide such consultancy services as the IT Committee determines are consistent with its other functions. It may provide consultancy services on a fee-for-service basis. Such services should be limited to preliminary advice and planning,
assistance in identifying a range of potentially appropriate products and services, and evaluations, but should not involve system implementation. (The Report is available from the AIJA, 95 Barry St, Carlton South, Victoria 3053 for $20, plus an additional $20 if a copy in computerised form - DOS/Windows or Macintosh - is desired.) G Greenleaf and A Mowbray