The local law landscape
the first movement control order (MCO) was put in place back in March of 2020, the Malaysian judiciary opted to allow for virtual remote hearings and virtual appeal proceedings amidst the growing number of cases. Hearings in the Court of Appeals were also live streamed online, emulating an open court with a public gallery.
A total of 22,521 civil cases and 118,541 criminal cases were disposed of despite the lockdown, according to statistics released by the judiciary in May 2020.
Even as the first MCO came to a conclusion the same month and the courts were allowed to resume physical hearings, they continued their digitalisation initiatives, which had started many years back.
The Malaysian court system adopted the Court Recording and Transcribing (CRT) system, which provided the courts and counsel with recordings intended to do away with their reliance on handwritten notes, in 2009.
In the years that followed, the Case Management System (CMS), which allowed for the storing and organising of case files and documents via a website, and the Queue Management System (QMS), which aimed to reduce the time lawyers spent waiting in court with a system that alerted them when it was their turn, were put in place.
The official portal for the Office of the Chief Registrar also includes digitalised court processes, including online case filings (efiling), property auctions (elelong), and bail posting (ejamin).
Meanwhile, the Ecourt Finance (ECF) system was developed to allow for a more convenient means to handle court-related transactions, including channelling payments for the filing of court documents, fines, and registration of Powers of Attorney at kiosks via cheques, ATM cards and cash.
Beyond the virtual courtroom, Malaysia has also been privy to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in the courts, with it being implemented in both Sabah and Sarawak.
Known as the Artificial Intelligence in Court Sentencing (AICOS), the system provides a guideline for sentencing, recommending terms for imprisonment and fines based on its database of similar cases while accounting for the circumstances of the case.
Despite the utility of AI systems like AICOS in ensuring the consistency of sentencing and serving as guidance in courtrooms, they are not meant to replace judges or magistrates, who are the linchpins in evaluating the context of a case.
Local institutions of higher learning have also advanced in tandem, updating their curriculum to better prepare future legal practitioners for a more digitally integrated courtroom.
Efforts to familiarise and develop students’ legal technology have been introduced, with electronic-based legal research, virtual moot trials and more.