 |
| Daniel J. Escott |
Additionally, the survey found another surprising trend: higher court judges are more concerned about the loss of face-to-face hearings than lower court judges, despite not dealing with live witness testimony or high-volume criminal cases as frequently as lower courts.
These unexpected findings raise critical questions about resource allocation, technological priorities, and the evolving role of the judiciary in a digital age. Why is it that criminal courts, where cases often involve life-altering decisions, are struggling with inadequate IT systems? Moreover, why do appellate judges, who primarily deal with written arguments and legal interpretations, feel a more significant loss with the decline of in-person hearings?
The scope of the problem
The survey revealed that 50 per cent of criminal court judges rated their IT support as “poor,” compared to just 20 per cent of civil court judges. Judges overseeing a mix of civil and criminal cases reported slightly better conditions but still fell behind civil courts regarding IT infrastructure. Moreover, criminal court judges working remotely faced even greater IT challenges, with connectivity issues, lack of remote access to case files, and minimal technical assistance.
At the same time, higher court judges (71 per cent) expressed greater concern about the reduction of in-person hearings compared to 54 per cent of lower court judges, even though lower courts handle far more criminal cases, where in-person testimony is often crucial.
These findings suggest that technological disparities are not just about infrastructure but also how judges perceive justice and the role of in-person proceedings.
Why is criminal court IT so bad?
Several factors contribute to the poor IT conditions in criminal courts, ranging from historical underfunding to institutional resistance to change.
1. Legacy systems and paper dependency
Criminal courts are traditionally heavily paper-based, relying on printed documents, in-person testimonies, and physical evidence. While civil courts have made significant strides toward digitization, including electronic filing and remote case management, criminal courts have lagged behind. This backlog is partly due to security concerns over sensitive evidence, and because courts have been reluctant to overhaul well-established procedures.
Judges in the survey expressed frustration that basic technological upgrades, such as integrated case management systems, remain unavailable in many criminal courts. Some even noted that they were expected to manually track evidence, rulings, and procedural steps without digital tools that are standard in other areas of law.
2. Lack of investment and government priorities
Funding for technology in courts tends to prioritize higher courts and civil justice innovations, rather than frontline criminal courts. The political nature of funding allocations may explain this uncoordinated prioritization, given that the executive branch and its elected officials tend to favour high-profile reforms over day-to-day improvements. It also raises questions of judicial independence, including whether the courts get any say or decision-making power over funding priorities and amounts.
For example, governments are more likely to invest in AI-driven legal research tools, virtual courtrooms, or appellate court efficiencies, rather than ensuring that trial-level criminal court judges have reliable IT support. Criminal courts, often dealing with urgent and sensitive cases, tend to be reactive rather than proactive in adopting technology.
3. Complexity of criminal trials makes tech integration harder
Criminal cases involve a wider variety of evidence types than civil cases, including:
- Live witness testimony and cross-examination;
- Audio and video evidence (body cameras, surveillance footage, wiretaps);
- Forensic reports and expert testimony; and
- Sensitive evidence, such as medical records and police investigations.
Unlike a contract dispute or a personal injury claim, where digital documents can easily be uploaded and reviewed, criminal trials require interactive and dynamic evidence presentation. Many criminal court judges reported that their courts lacked proper digital screens, electronic exhibit software, and even basic internet access for evidence review. Criminal cases often involve unrepresented defendants, language barriers, and vulnerable witnesses, all of which require additional technological adaptations that many courts simply do not have.
Why are higher court judges more concerned about the loss of in-person hearings?
Given that lower courts manage far more criminal cases, one might expect lower court judges to be the most concerned about losing in-person hearings. Surprisingly, the survey suggests the opposite: higher court judges report to feel the loss of face-to-face hearings more acutely. At first glance, this disconnect makes little sense, but it could be attributed to a few nuanced issues.
1. Judicial philosophy and courtroom decorum
Higher court judges may view in-person hearings as essential to judicial authority, formality, and the gravitas of court proceedings. Even though they rarely hear live testimony, they may see physical presence as an important part of maintaining a structured and respectful legal environment.
One judge noted, “Claims of enhanced ‘accessibility’ reduce to lazy lawyers not wanting to put on a suit properly. Virtual hearings are a profound diminution of justice and respect for the institutions of Court and the rule of law.”
2. The nature of legal advocacy in higher courts
While criminal court judges must engage with fact-heavy and evidence-driven trials, higher court judges primarily oversee legal arguments, precedent-based reasoning, and appellate advocacy.
These cases rely on intellectual debate, precise argumentation, and judicial interaction, which some judges feel is less effective in virtual formats. One judge remarked that “In person hearings are still preferable for most appeal hearings.” Another judge reported that “Remote hearings present difficulty in document management. Oral evidence should not be done remotely. Hearings with just oral submissions can be effective either remote or in person. But parties using remote hearing technology do not respect the court process and importance in the same way.”
3. Control and adaptation to change
Higher court judges often have longer tenures and may have spent decades in a traditional courtroom setting. Their concerns about losing in-person hearings may stem from a reluctance to adapt to new technological norms.
Conversely, lower court judges, who must oversee a high volume of cases, self-represented litigants, and urgent matters, may have already adjusted to hybrid or virtual models out of necessity.
Implications for the future
The differing concerns of criminal court judges and higher court judges reveal a deeper tension in the justice system:
- Criminal courts urgently need better technology to manage complex cases;
- Higher courts must adapt to new formats while maintaining the legitimacy of oral advocacy; and,
- The judiciary must find a balance between efficiency and courtroom tradition.
If courts continue to lag in technological upgrades, criminal cases will continue to suffer from inefficiency, delays, and potential due process violations. If higher courts remain resistant to virtual hearings, they risk falling behind global trends in legal accessibility.
Conclusion
The gap in IT infrastructure between criminal and civil courts is not just a minor inconvenience; it has real consequences for the fairness and efficiency of justice. Criminal court judges handle some of the most high-stakes cases in the legal system, yet many lack basic digital tools that could improve case management, fairness, and efficiency.
At the same time, higher court judges’ concerns about the loss of in-person hearings highlight the ongoing struggle between tradition and modernization. Addressing these tensions requires strategic investment, judicial adaptation, and a recognition that justice must be both efficient and dignified in the digital age.
Daniel J. Escott is a research fellow at the Artificial Intelligence Risk and Regulation Lab and the Access to Justice Centre for Excellence. He is currently pursuing an LL.M. at Osgoode Hall Law School, and holds a J.D. from the University of New Brunswick and a BBA from the Memorial University of Newfoundland.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.