Download
1 / 27
270 likes | 367 Views
Planning and Implementing an eAppeal : The British Columbia Experience. Tim Outerbridge, Law Officer, BC Court of Appeal Andrew Clark, Consultant. Introduction: BC eCourt Project. eCourt is a capital funded project in partnership with Court Services & the Judiciary.
E N D
Planning and Implementing an eAppeal: The British Columbia Experience Tim Outerbridge, Law Officer, BC Court of Appeal Andrew Clark, Consultant
Introduction: BC eCourt Project • eCourt is a capital funded project in partnership with Court Services & the Judiciary. • eAppeal is part of larger eCourt project in British Columbia. • eAppeal is a “proof of concept” to test the effectiveness of courtroom processes and technologies.
Introduction: eAppeal • Why: Why does it make sense to conduct an eAppeal? • What: How did we come up with and plan the eAppeal process? • How: How did we evaluate the program once the appeal was completed?
Why Conduct an eAppeal? • Because it’s Simpler: Can be easier to organise than a trial. • Because It Efficient: With the right case, net cost savings to the parties and the court. • Because it Achieves Strategic Goals: An investment in future simplicity and efficiency.
Strategic Goals • Test the effectiveness of potential eCourt processes and technologies. • To evaluate how the appellate process works when a proceeding at trial was conducted electronically. • To construct a protocol to be used for all eAppeals, rather than just a “one-off procedure.”
Planning Procedure • Examine as three sets of needs: • Part 1, Front End Priorities: Working with counsel, court administration to devise a process to get the records to the court. • Part 2, Back End Priorities:Working with judges, court administration to receive, work up and store the materials. • Part 3, Presentation: Working with all parties to prepare the courtroom presentation.
Planning Procedure • Each part planned using same process: • Consultation • Priorities • Solution/technology • Solutions driven by needs, not technology.
Front End: Consultation • Recognise the importance of consultation up front. • Conducted informal consultation with counsel, court administration and judges to devise a “wish list” of priorities for each.
Front End: Rank/Compare Priorities • Found that many court priorities matched counsel’s priorities: • Material needs to be linked and indexed to allow ease of access and research • Simple interface for highlighting, annotating, taking notes • Inexpensive / accessible: can sell to clients / public
Front End: Develop Protocol/Tech • Indexed, Linked, Supports Preparation of Case • Minimise documents & reduce overlap. • Simple Interface • Recognise robust set of tools presently outside skill level of judges. • Accessible/Inexpensive • What is the minimum we can spend to accomplish goals.
Front End: The Protocol • Submissions to the court build on each other and remain static once filed. No need for duplication. • Appellant begins, constructs majority of binder, including appeal book (trial record). Circulated. • At the end, Respondent files complete eAppealrecord. • The result should be a fully linked electronic binder
Front End: The Technology • Nothing commercially that suited needs • Usually too robust/complex/designed for trial • Opted for simple PDF format for several reasons: • Technology already being used by counsel • “Industry standard” – scalable, storable • Inexpensive
Challenges • Problem 1: Getting counsel to work together. • Solution: Case management • Problem 2: Formatting/inconsistencies in style. • Solution: Oversight by court staff. • Problem 3: Diverse sets of technical competencies. • Solution: Allow some paper for those who need it.
Back End: Consultation • Most judges unfamiliar with the technology – would require extensive training. • But... would not work on appeal until the same month as the hearing. • Records managers required improved infrastructure for receiving and storing eAppeal materials.
Back End: Rank/Compare Priorities • Found that many court administration priorities could also be addressed: • Ease of storage and management • Integration with current practices • Long term storage – is the electronic copy the “original” copy?
Rank/Compare Priorities • Training. Graduated process of education – an initial seminar, follow-up private sessions. • Judicial IT “on call” to deal with problems in the lead up to the appeal • Receipt & Storage. Less of a priority. Will become more important as protocol is standardised.
Presentation: Consultation • Both judges and counsel wanted simple courtroom layout to display of PDFs. • Judges required separate workspace, wanted to be able to bring their annotated materials into the courtroom. • Judges wanted to be able to annotate in the courtroom.
Presentation: Courtroom Layout • Centered around a “presentation” source computer, controlled at lectern, with screens producing a mirror-image on bench and counsel tables. • Counsel choose whether to use PC (with assistant/junior) or laptop on lectern as they present. • Judges and other counsel have eAppeal binder on laptops for private viewing and annotating.
