Review of Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010
What modes of technology should be used (Q10,11)
Click on the drop downs to read about the current law, the problem or opportunity and option(s) for change.
Current law
Following the enactment of the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Act 2024, the Act authorises remote participation by both audio-visual link (AVL) and audio link (AL).
The Act prescribes the circumstances where each ‘mode’ of technology (AVL or AL) can be used. The threshold for using AL is higher than for AVL. For example, the Act authorises use of AL only in criminal proceedings that defendants do not attend, and in appropriate civil proceedings (including in the Family Court). This recognises that AL imposes constraints on a person’s ability to participate effectively in a hearing.
Problem or opportunity
We have identified potential issues with prescribing separate rules for AVL and AL technology. This approach may create layers of complexity for court users, making an Act difficult to apply. It also provides less flexibility and discretion for decision-makers to determine the appropriate form of technology in the individual case. For example, it may restrict their ability to permit use of technology appropriate to the communication needs of visually-impaired or deaf users.
We want to test these assumptions to determine whether a change in settings is necessary.
Option we are considering
No separate rules for AVL and AL. Instead, decision-makers would be responsible for determining the appropriate ‘mode’ of remote participation in the individual case. They would be guided by statutory criteria and what is in the interests of justice.
This option could remove layers of complexity, making an Act easier to apply. It could also provide more flexibility for decision-makers to determine the appropriate type of technology in the individual case.
However, removing separate rules from primary legislation would - unless provided for in Court Rules or Judicial Protocols - provide less certainty for court users about the circumstances when each type of technology may be used. It does not emphasise the constraints that AL places on participants’ ability to participate effectively in proceedings to the same extent as the current Act.