Technology in the courtroom: challenges with presenting children’s evidence

References

• Burrows, K. S., & Powell, M. B. (2014a). Prosecutors’ perspectives on using recorded child witness interviews about abuse as evidence-in-chief. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 47(3), 374–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865814522821
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burrows, K. S., & Powell, M. B. (2014b). Prosecutors’ perspectives on improving child witness interviews about abuse. In R. Bull (Ed.), Investigative interviewing (pp. 229–242). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Burrows, K. S., & Powell, M. B. (2014c). Prosecutors’ recommendations for improving child witness statements about sexual abuse. Policing and Society, 24(2), 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2013.784305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cashmore, J., & De Haas, N. (1992). The use of closed-circuit television for child witnesses in the ACT. Australian Law Reform Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Cashmore, J., & Trimboli, L. (2005). An evaluation of the NSW child sexual assault specialist jurisdiction pilot. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
   Google Scholar
• Cashmore, J., & Trimboli, L. (2006). Child sexual assault trials: A survey of juror perceptions. Crime and Justice Bulletin, 102, 1–20. https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Publications/CJB/cjb102.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Cossins, A. (2006). Prosecuting child sexual assault cases: Are vulnerable witness protections enough? Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 18(2), 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2006.12036391
   Google Scholar
• Cossins, A. (2010). Alternative models for prosecuting child sex offences in Australia. The National Child Sexual Assault Reform Committee.
   Google Scholar
• Cossins, A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2017). The application of the uniform evidence law to delay in child sexual assault trials. In A. Roberts & J. Gans (Eds.), Critical perspectives on the uniform evidence law (pp. 104–124). Federation Press.
   Google Scholar
• Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010 (NZ).
   Google Scholar
• Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).
   Google Scholar
• Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic).
   Google Scholar
• Crummey, C. (2020). Why fair procedures always make a difference. The Modern Law Review, 83(6), 1221–1245. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12556
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, E., Devere, H., & Verbitsky, J. (2004). Court education for young witnesses: Evaluation of the pilot service in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Psychiatry, Psychology and law, 11(2), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1375/pplt.2004.11.2.226
   Google Scholar
• Davies, G., & Noon, E. (1991). An evaluation of the live link for child witnesses. Home Office.
   Google Scholar
• Donoghue, J. (2017). The rise of digital justice: Courtroom technology, public participation and access to justice. The Modern Law Review, 80(6), 995–1025. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12300
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eastwood, C., Kift, S., & Grace, R. (2006). Attrition in child sexual assault cases: Why Lord Chief Justice Hale got it wrong. Journal of Judicial Administration, 16, 81–91. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/224968/.
   Google Scholar
• Eastwood, C., & Patton, W. (2002). The experiences of child complainants of sexual abuse in the criminal justice system. Criminology Research Council. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/22497/.
   Google Scholar
• Evidence Act 1906 (WA).
   Google Scholar
• Evidence Act 1929 (SA).
   Google Scholar
• Evidence Act 1939 (NT).
   Google Scholar
• Evidence Act 1958 (Vic).
   Google Scholar
• Evidence Act 1977 (Qld).
   Google Scholar
• Evidence Act 2001 (Tas).
   Google Scholar
• Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW).
   Google Scholar
• Evidence (Children and Special Witnesses) Act 2001 (Tas).
   Google Scholar
• Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT).
   Google Scholar
• Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (NSW)Federal Court of Australia. (2016). Technology and the Court Practice Note (GPN-TECH). https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/practice-notes/gpn-tech.
   Google Scholar
• Fielding, N., Braun, S., Hieke, G., & Mainwaring, C. (2020). Video enabled justice evaluation. Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner.
   Google Scholar
• Fowler, Y. (2016). Court interpreting in England: What works? (and for whom)?: how interpreted prison video link impacts upon courtroom interaction. Language and law, 3(2), 135–168.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, N., & Jones, M. (2005). Children giving evidence of sexual offences in criminal proceedings: Special measures in Australian states and territories. Journal of Judicial Administration, 14(3), 157–170.
   Google Scholar
• Hamlyn, B., Phelps, A., Turtle, J., & Sattar, G. (2004). Are special measures working? Evidence from surveys of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. In Home office research study (Vol. 283, pp. 1–126). Home Office.
   Google Scholar
• Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2011). Switch: How to change things when change is hard. Random House Business Books.
   Google Scholar
• Hohl, K., Johnson, K., & Molisso, S. (2022). A procedural justice theory approach to police engagement with victim-survivors of rape and sexual assault: Initial findings of the ‘Project Bluestone’ pilot study. International Criminology, 2(3), 253-261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43576-022-00056-z
   Google Scholar
• Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals Reform) Act 2010 (NT).
   Google Scholar
• Kashyap, K., Lulham, R., Klippan, L., Munro, T., Bradley, K., Fahey, J., Tomkin, D., Rowden, E., & McKay, C. (2018). Court-custody audio visual links: Designing for equitable justice experience in the use of court custody video conferencing. University of Technology Sydney.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, E., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Fraser, M., Powell, M., & Westera, N. (2019). Special measures in child sexual abuse trials: Criminal justice practitioners’ experiences and views. QUT Law Review, 18(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.5204/qutlr.v18i2.757
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legg, M. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic, the courts and online hearings: Maintaining open justice, procedural fairness and impartiality. Federal law Review, 49(2), 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X21993139
   Google Scholar
• Legg, M., & Song, A. (2020). The courts, the remote hearing and the pandemic: From action to reflection. UNSW Law Journal, 44(1), 126–166.
   Google Scholar
• McKay, C. (2020). Glitching justice: Audio visual links and the sonic world of technologised courts. Law Text Culture, 24(1), 364–404.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Mulcahy, L. (2008). The unbearable lightness of being? Shifts towards the virtual trial. Journal of Law and Society, 35(4), 464–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2008.00447.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray, K. (1995). Live television link: An evaluation of its use by child witnesses in Scottish criminal trials. The Scottish Office, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• Nikolskaia, K., & Naumov, V. (2020). Artificial intelligence in Law. In 2020 international multi-conference on industrial engineering and modern technologies (FarEastCon) (pp. 1–4). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FarEastCon50210.2020.9271095
   Google Scholar
• NZ Ministry of Justice. (2018). Technological failure protocol. https://www.districtcourts.govt.nz/statutory-protocolsguidelines/other-protocolsguidelines/avl-protocols/technological-failure-protocol/.
   Google Scholar
• Plotnikoff, J., & Woolfson, R. (2009). Measuring up? Evaluating implementation of government commitments to young witnesses in criminal proceedings. National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
   Google Scholar
• Powell, M. (2005). Improving the reliability of child witness testimony in court: The importance of focusing on questioning techniques. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 17(1), 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2005.12036342
   Google Scholar
• Powell, M., Westera, N., Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Pichler, A. S. (2016). An evaluation of how evidence is elicited from complainants of child sexual abuse. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
   Google Scholar
• Powell, M. B., & Wright, R. (2009). Professionals’ perceptions of a new model of sexual assault investigation adopted by Victoria Police. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 23(3), 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2012.12035928
   Google Scholar
• Productivity Commission. (2014). Access to justice arrangements: Inquiry report. Australian Government.
   Google Scholar
• Richards, K. (2009). Child complainants and the court process in Australia. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 380, 1–6. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/216923/.
   Google Scholar
• Rossner, M., & McCurdy, M. (2018). Implementing video hearings (party-to-state): A process evaluation. Ministry of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Rowden, E., & Wallace, A. (2019). Performing expertise: The design of audiovisual links and the construction of the remote expert witness in court. Social & Legal Studies, 28(5), 698–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663918802991
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowden, E., Wallace, A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2010). Sentencing by video-link: Up in the air? Criminal law Journal, 34(6), 363–384.
   Google Scholar
• Rundle, K. (2016). The stakes of procedural fairness: Reflections of the Australian position. Australian Journal of Administrative law, 23(3), 164–173.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, M., Harker, L., & Rothera, S. (2020). Remote hearings in the family justice system: A rapid consultation. Nuffield Family Justice Observatory.
   Google Scholar
• Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act 1983 (NT).
   Google Scholar
• Sim, J., & Wright, C. (2000). Research in health care: Concepts, designs and methods. Stanley Thornes.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Tait, D., McKimmie, B., Sarre, R., Jones, D., McDonald, L. D., & Gelb, K. (2017). Towards a distributed courtroom. Western Sydney University.
   Google Scholar
• Tait, D., & Tay, V. (2019). Virtual court study: Report of a pilot test 2018. Western Sydney University.
   Google Scholar
• Tetra Pak Marketing Pty Ltd v Musashi Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1261.
   Google Scholar
• Tyler, T., Casper, J., & Fisher, B. (1989). Maintaining allegiance toward political authorities: The role of prior attitudes and the use of fair procedures. American Journal of Political Science, 33(3), 629–652. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulenaers, J. (2020). The impact of artificial intelligence on the right to a fair trial: Towards a robot judge? Asian Journal of Law and Economics, 11(2), https://doi.org/10.1515/ajle-2020-0008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Versace v Monty [2001] FCA 1454.
   Google Scholar
• Wallace, A. (2008). “Virtual justice in the bush”: The use of court technology in remote and regional Australia. Journal of law and Information Science, 19(1), 1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Wallace, A., & Laster, K. (2021). Courts in Victoria, Australia, during COVID: Will digital innovation stick? International Journal for Court Administration, 12. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.389
   Google Scholar