Open Justice or Open Season? Developments in Judicial Engagement With New Media

Barrett, Jonathan

doi:10.5204/qutlr.v11i1.2

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Why are courts only relatively open to digital technologies? One issue often discussed in the literature on live text‐based communication concerns the definition of a journalist (Wallace and Johnston ; Barrett ; Findlay ). However, we argue that there is another question rarely asked: who is the public?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One could foresee considerable benefits to the accountability and educative purposes of the courts if individuals from these groups were able to engage in live text‐based communication. As Barrett (: 17) points out “the potential to privilege corporate media over individuals is real and may [be] unjustifiable.” Many journalists do not have legal training (Sauvageau, Schneiderman, and Taras ). And court reporting in Canada is not without criticism.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this way, some members of the public are representatives of that public. This is a profound shift in the principle of the open court, that some see as “disruptive”; by “challenging both the traditional media's unique news publication capacity and the courts' practical ability to suppress information” (Barrett : 3).…”

Section: Open Courts In the Digital Agementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The distinction between traditional media actors and newer ones is note‐worthy. Barrett () notes the media have long had a privileged role over citizens in the judicial system, and this privilege is maintained in this policy. Judicial discretion is also maintained.…”

Section: Live Text‐based Communication In the Uk And Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Australian courts have also grappled with the issue of live text‐based communication, which has been the subject of academic analysis (see Barrett ; Wallace and Johnston ; Findlay ). The resulting policies, most of which developed between 2013 and 2014, are a bit more complex given that Australia is a federation of six states.…”

Section: Live Text‐based Communication In the Uk And Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Navigating the principle of open court in the digital age: The more things change, the more they stay the same

Puddister¹,

Small²

2019

Can Public Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The belief that courts should be open to the public is a guiding principle of the Canadian legal system. This article examines the principle of open court in the digital age by analyzing policies governing live text‐based communication in Canadian courtrooms. We argue that courts have and have not responded to the changing digital landscape. While Canadian journalists have the ability to use live text‐based communication in courts, the general public does not despite new affordances provided to them by digital technologies. This article explores the tensions between administrative judicial independence, open court, and digital technology.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Open Courts In the Digital Agementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Live Text‐based Communication In the Uk And Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Live Text‐based Communication In the Uk And Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Navigating the principle of open court in the digital age: The more things change, the more they stay the same

Puddister¹,

Small²

2019

Can Public Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Walking a Legal Tightrope: Assessing the Legal Capacity of Persons Experiencing Dementia to Make and Revoke Enduring Powers of Attorney in Australia

Webb

2021

Dementia Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

E-justice evaluation factors: The case of Smart Court of China

Xia

2020

Information Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As information and communication technologies (ICT) continue to impact and shape modern society, and e-justice has gained momentum in recent years. China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) set up a trial management information system that connects all courts in China. Designed to be online, transparent, and intelligent, China’s Smart Court development began in 2016. In practice, SPC promoted modernization of the trial systems to improve the flow of information between courts throughout China. However, significant investments in ICT e-justice services have caused some to question whether these investments have achieved the expected ends. Thus, how to evaluate e-justice services becomes an urgent theoretical and policy issue in the process of e-justice construction in China. E-justice value is not clearly defined in theory in China, nor is easy to measure in practice. Because of the sensitive and complex nature of such evaluation, little research has been conducted in this regard. The objective of this paper is to fill this gap. Relevant literature is reviewed before the article moves on to describe various approaches withe regard to e-government and e-justice evaluation, as well as the characteristics of China’s Smart Court. Evaluation factors and constructs are found based on the Chinese circumstances. This study contributes to the development of a holistic evaluation framework for e-justice system. It also adds the Chinese case to the existing literature. Evaluation factors found in this article can also serve as a foundation for future development and study of e-justice services.

show abstract

Open Justice or Open Season? Developments in Judicial Engagement With New Media

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Navigating the principle of open court in the digital age: The more things change, the more they stay the same

Navigating the principle of open court in the digital age: The more things change, the more they stay the same

Walking a Legal Tightrope: Assessing the Legal Capacity of Persons Experiencing Dementia to Make and Revoke Enduring Powers of Attorney in Australia

E-justice evaluation factors: The case of Smart Court of China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About