Review of Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010
When should remote participation be used in criminal proceedings (Q30-33)
Issue 2: Enabling greater use of remote participation in criminal procedural matters
Current law
Under the Act, participants may participate in criminal procedural matters by audio-visual link (AVL) if a judicial officer or Registrar is satisfied the statutory criteria are met (section 8(1A)). This covers defendants who are not in custody and lawyers. As noted above, criminal procedural matters could include first and second appearances, case review hearings and pre-trial call-overs.
Audio links (AL) may be used instead of AVL in a criminal procedural matter if the judicial officer or Registrar determines that use is appropriate and not contrary to the interests of justice, and the defendant is not required to or does not wish to attend the hearing (section 8A).
Problem or opportunity
We have identified an opportunity to strengthen expectations that participants (defendants who are not in custody and lawyers) may remotely attend criminal procedural matters if they wish to, and if the appropriate technology and facilities are available.
Many criminal procedural hearings are relatively short and straightforward. We have heard from some legal professional groups and the New Zealand Police that enabling lawyers, including Police prosecutors, to more frequently appear remotely at such hearings could create efficiencies while still satisfying the interests of justice.
Option we are considering
Entitle participants (defendants who are not in custody and lawyers) to attend criminal procedural matters remotely on request.
Judicial officers and/or Registrars could depart from this entitlement after considering statutory criteria. It would be important to consider its appropriateness for defendants, especially those with age, disability, mental health, language, or comprehension barriers. Defendants also currently need to physically attend court if they need to sign a bail variation.
Where the appropriate technology and facilities are available, introducing this entitlement could provide greater convenience to participants, such as reduced travel and time savings for lawyers needing to work across courts and geographical areas.
However, depending on the volume of requests, this option could fundamentally change the way the courts run (e.g. list courts could look different). There are risks this option could create additional pressure on the courts, due to increased time required to schedule, set up, and support remote participation.