Review of Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010
Who should be able to participate remotely (Q4,5)
Overview
The Act defines “participants” widely to include: a party, defendant, counsel, witness, member of the jury, judicial officer, Registrar, and any other person directly involved in the proceeding whom the decision-maker considers appropriate.
We have identified three potential issues relating to participants.
For each issue, click on the drop downs to read about the current law, the problem or opportunity and option(s) for change.
Issue 1: Remote observation
Current law
The Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Act 2024 enacted a presumption that victims may remotely observe criminal trials and sentencing hearings where appropriate. This comes into force in March 2025. This presumption will support victims and enable them to avoid the stress and potential retraumatisation they may experience when physically attending court.
Problem or opportunity
We have identified a potential unintended consequence of introducing a victims’ remote observation ‘presumption’ under the Act. It may create doubts about whether the Act covers other observers, such as the media and public.
Courts already permit the media and public to observe some hearings remotely. A lack of clarity about the Act’s application to these observers, and the interplay with the courts’ inherent and implied powers, could create unnecessary confusion and raise questions about existing court practice.
Option we are considering
Carry through the presumption that victims can remotely observe criminal trials and sentencings, and clarify that the Act covers remote observers, including victims, the media, and public. This could involve formalising a remote observation framework in an Act. The framework could apply to all observers, all hearings, and appropriate courts. Decision-makers would need to consider statutory criteria before determining appropriate use.
A new framework would maintain existing restrictions on public and media court attendance. For example, many Family Court cases are closed to the public. We would also need to consider implications that may arise if people are observing from outside of New Zealand.
Creating a clear framework to facilitate remote observation would formalise what already occurs in practice. It would also support the principle of open justice and could help to improve public understanding of the courts and strengthen the connection between the courts and communities.
Any increase in remote observation use would increase the risks of unauthorised recordings of court hearings. A significant increase in remote observation use would also have a big impact on court registries in managing observation. It would require substantial investment in remote participation infrastructure.