President’s Message

We should harness the potential of remote technology while acknowledging the gravitas of the courtroom.

JUSTIN STEWART-RATTRAY, PRESIDENT

This is my penultimate President’s Message, and it’s hard to believe we have reached that time of the year when shops are already heavily stocked with Christmas decorations!

This holiday season is certainly shaping up to be far wetter than average, and the flood-risk facing the Riverland was on my mind when last week I travelled to Tanunda and Berri for a regional visit. With the flooding predicted to peak in December, Legal Services Commission and the Society are on stand-by to implement an Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Plan, which can connect disaster victims with free legal advice, if need be, but here’s hoping that the worst effects can be avoided.

It was so insightful to speak to country practitioners to hear about the issues they deal with and the challenges they face. One common concern was the lack of remote access to courts for country practitioners. Several practitioners expressed their frustrations with inadequate remote access technology, and instances where, for example, they had to travel all the way to Adelaide for only a 3-minute hearing.

While opinions differ on the circumstances when remote hearings are appropriate, it is clear that it has the potential to save time, money and angst. It is now evident that there needs to be some sort of agreed protocol for the use of remote technology in the court.

On 1 November, Civil Litigation Committee Chair Alex Lazarevich and I attended a meeting of the Joint Rules Advisory Committee to discuss a set of draft electronic protocols for online hearings that the Society has proposed.

Essentially, the draft protocols acknowledge that while it may be preferable that trials and other hearings are conducted in person, there should be enough flexibility in the court procedures to consider remote hearings in particular circumstances. These considerations include public health emergencies, the personal circumstances of participants in court proceedings, their location, the likely costs and delay in personally having to attend and the availability of suitable technology.

The draft protocols also include a practical guide for participants to ensure remote hearings run smoothly and court etiquette is observed.

I note that the Hon President Justice Dolphin provided a report this week on an MS Teams Conciliation Pilot Project that was conducted by the SA Employment Tribunal from April to September 2022. The conclusion was that “AV technology is suitable and appropriate to assist with the business of SAET. However, there will be no one-size-fitsall approach, with SAET being flexible in the way it conducts its business and adapting its procedures to best fit the circumstances of any particular case. In that regard, AV technology will continue to be used by SAET where appropriate and necessary.”

Another potential benefit of remote technology is its potential to facilitate access to justice for people with a disability. For example, remote technology can be used in appropriate settings to help vulnerable witnesses, particularly those with special communication needs or who have trauma-related mental health conditions, provide evidence. Of course, remote technology can also be used to overcome some of the barriers that people with physical disabilities face.

In saying that, there are occasions it is most appropriate that participants are physically present in a courtroom, which is why it is really important that our court facilities are up to modern day accessibility standards. This is something the Society has long advocated for, and I reiterate the Society’s calls for funding to upgrade our courtrooms so they can truly be accessible to all. B