Ready for a virtual production line of justice?

Imagine a justice system where defendants stand in front of a video camera and the case is heard remotely by the next available judge on a virtual production line – wherever that judge happens to be anywhere in the country.

What would that say about our criminal justice system, and is it a way of doing court business that we would want to embrace?

The technology and the beginnings of a virtual court system already exist, and are being used. Since the Courts (Remote Participation) Act was introduced in 2010, defendants’ appearances in court via video link have become more common. Indeed, they happen by default in hearings where no evidence is being called that day.

The question that is exercising some minds at the top of the legal profession is how far this process should be allowed to go – particularly about the idea that where judges and lawyers are physically located may now be immaterial in this age.

For the people running the Ministry of Justice – the officials and the bureaucrats – new technology and new ways of doing business obviously offer a way of streamlining the system, and relieving clogs and bottlenecks.

When the courts got jammed some years ago, greater use of police pre-charge warnings and the diversion scheme were effective in keeping lower-grade offending out of the courts. The number of criminal cases in the district court dropped from about 175,000 to under 135,000 in 2014.

However, according to the latest available statistics, they are beginning to trend up again. Last year, there were 138,000 new criminal cases. And they are becoming more complicated.

The view of the Secretary for Justice, Andrew Bridgman, the man in charge of the system, is that many people coming into the court system find it ‘‘foreign, antiquated, inaccessible and expensive’’.

If the technology exists to make it more efficient, streamline and bring it into the 21st century, then obviously it should be considered. There is always a case to be made when taxpayers’ dollars can be saved.

But 40 per cent of police apprehensions are now dealt with by processes that don’t involve the courts.

It all seems laudable and efficient, but it also raises problems. In the words of the Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias in a speech this year to the Criminal Bar Association: ‘‘Who is questioning where this is going and how it affects the impartial, equal and public delivery of criminal justice?’’

Dame Sian cited the example of early guilty pleas, which have the administrative advantage of avoiding expensive and timeconsuming defended hearings.

If the inducements for an innocent person to plead guilty outweigh the incentive to risk pleading not guilty, perhaps risking a tougher sentence, then justice is not served.