[back]

This ARC-funded Linkage Project brings together research from seven disciplines with courts, prosecutors, police and technology companies to develop best practice guidelines to introduce new video technologies to enable the courts to make effective use of high-quality video evidence, both from scientific experts and from key witnesses who cannot attend in person for security reasons.

The study aims:
- To describe how social, technological and built environments of remote witness facilities affect the experience of justice participants.
- To identify the factors that produce greater sense of presence for users of remote witness facilities and facilitate more effective communication between them and participants elsewhere.
- To measure the impact of selected changes in the design and use of remote witness facilities on sense of presence and quality of communication.
- To develop best practice guidelines for the most effective use of remote access facilities in the administration of justice.

Evidence-based research is already well accepted in the design and organisation of hospitals, where reduced bed-days translate directly into cost savings (Pattison, 1996). The same rigour has never been applied to the justice arena; specifically to the one facility that is most critical to the transformation of courts – the remote ‘gateway’. Courts, police agencies and prisons are making large investments in remote access facilities; such investments have considerable potential for reducing costs, improving security, increasing access and improving the speed of justice processes. But there is little reliable evidence about how to manage this change in a way that best meets the needs of both justice agencies and participants.

Video-conferencing may increase theoretical access to justice services for people in a variety of locations, but it may reduce effective access if the social context of the communication is ignored when services are implemented. Court processes may have to be adjusted to meet the needs of participants appearing remotely, e.g., by providing better preparations and fuller orientations, more opportunities for feedback, more breaks, and greater use of visual aids. For expert witnesses, including forensic scientists, it may be necessary for the witness to see jury responses to complex explanations (to see if they are following), to use multiple channels (such as an electronic whiteboard) and to ensure that audio is two-way (to allow interruptions).

The implications for court design and courtrooms themselves are substantial. For courts to justify services that balance user needs for privacy and serenity with the demands of justice for visibility and transparency, they need information about the impact of specific changes to the built environment. Some remote spaces used for court processes are not under the control of courts. These include prisons, police facilities, and a range of public and private facilities. Guidelines to assist the development of these spaces would ensure greater consistency in the quality of service provided in those settings.

 

People involved in this project:

David Tait, University of Canberra, Criminology Link

Greg Battye, University of Canberra, Communications Link

Rod Louey-Gung, Director of Integrated Media, Technology Link

George Travan, Jumbo Vision International, Technology Link

Anne Wallace, University of Canberra, Jurist Link

Kate Auty, Magistrate, Western Australia

James Robertson, Australian Federal Police Link

Chris Lennard, University of Canberra, Forensic Sciences Link

Richard Refshauge, Judge, Supreme Court, ACT Link

Graham Brawn, University of Melbourne, Architecture Link

Greg Missingham, University of Melbourne, Architecture Link

Terry Carney, University of Sydney, Law Link

Jane Goodman-Delahunty, University of New South Wales, Psychology