The Rise of Digital Justice: Courtroom Technology, Public Participation and Access to Justice

Abstract

This article addresses a little discussed yet fundamentally important aspect of legal technological transformation: the rise of digital justice in the courtroom. Against the backdrop of the government's current programme of digital court modernisation in England and Wales, it examines the implications of advances in courtroom technology for fair and equitable public participation, and access to justice. The article contends that legal reforms have omitted any detailed consideration of the type and quality of citizen participation in newly digitised court processes which have fundamental implications for the legitimacy and substantive outcomes of court-based processes; and for enhancing democratic procedure through improved access to justice. It is argued that although digital court tools and systems offer great promise for enhancing efficiency, participation and accessibility, they simultaneously have the potential to amplify the scope for injustice, and to attenuate central principles of the legal system, including somewhat paradoxically, access to justice. * Professor of Criminology, College of Law and Criminology, Swansea University. Sincere thanks are due to Nicola Padfield, John Martyn Chamberlain and the two anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments on an earlier draft of this article. 1

Automation in social security: Implications for merits review?

“…What is canvassed in this article are some of the ways AI is further strengthening some of the already disturbing winds of cultural change blowing through the AAT (Lucy ). These include the way ADR and other AI initiatives may further deteriorate rather than improve the quality of merits review decision making or distort access to justice (Donoghue ).…”

Courts, Mediation and COVID-19

“…170 Donoghue has thus argued that "'investment in the use of high-quality video equipment is essential"' in order to reap the benefits of videoconferencing. 171 Yet, considering the pace and degree to which videoconferencing has been implemented by jurisdictions as a response to COVID-19, it seems unlikely that such an investment will be made. 172 Indeed, the Federal Circuit Court is currently calling for feedback from litigants, lawyers and other participants about their experience of court and ADR processes that have been conducted electronically.…”

Justice and Nonverbal Communication in a Post-pandemic World: An Evidence-Based Commentary and Cautionary Statement for Lawyers and Judges

“…Nevertheless, before extolling the merits of phone and computer applications, the multiple functions of nonverbal communication should be carefully considered, as should other concerns raised by experts. Legal scholars have written about various adverse consequences of trials by videoconference (e.g., Cimino et al 2014 ; Diamond et al 2010 ; Donoghue 2017 ; Federman 2006 ; Marr 2013 ; Poulin 2004 ; Walsh and Walsh 2008 ). These consequences not only include dehumanizing defendants (Eagly 2015 ; Salyzyn 2012 ), but also compromising their right to effective counsel assistance (Johnson and Wiggins 2006 ), and hindering the image and the role of judges, the symbolic function of courthouses, and the law’s legitimacy and authority (Rowden 2015 ; Rowden and Wallace 2018 ; Salyzyn 2012 ).…”