Gateways to Justice: Design and Operational Guidelines for Remote Participation in Court Proceedings

gateways to justice: design and operational guidelines for remote participation in court proceedings

AUTHORS: Emma Rowden, Anne Wallace, David Tait, Mark Hanson and Diane Jones

A SYNTHESIS OF THE FINDINGS FROM THE AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH COUNCIL LINKAGE PROJECT GATEWAYS TO JUSTICE: IMPROVING VIDEO-MEDIATED COMMUNICATIONS FOR JUSTICE PARTICIPANTS LEAD INVESTIGATOR: PROFESSOR DAVID TAIT (JUSTICE RESEARCH GROUP, UWS)

THE GATEWAYS PROJECT TEAM: Professor David Tait (University of Western Sydney); Professor Greg Batye (Uni- versity of Canberra); Professor Deborah Blackman (University of Canberra); Emeritus Professor Graham Brawn (Uni- versity of Melbourne); Emeritus Professor Terry Carney (University of Sydney); Professor Jane Goodman-Delahunty (Charles Sturt University); Professor Chris Lennard (University of Canberra); Associate Professor Greg Missingham (University of Melbourne); Dr Alice Richardson (University of Canberra); Dr Emma Rowden (University of Technology Sydney); Professor Anne Wallace (Edith Cowan University).

PARTNER INVESTIGATORS: Diane Jones (PTW Architects; Adjunct Professor, BE UNSW); Dr James Robertson (NCFS Director, University of Canberra); Dr Kate Auty (Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability, Victoria; Adjunct Professor La Trobe); The Hon. Jusice Richard Refshauge (Supreme Court ACT); Rod Louey-Gung (ICE Design); Mark Hanson (ICE Design).

ISBN: 978-1-74108-267-8 Published by the University of Western Sydney Accessed from: htp://www.uws.edu.au/jusice/jusice/publicaions © Text: Emma Rowden, Anne Wallace, David Tait, Mark Hanson and Diane Jones. © Images: Emma Rowden acknowledgments

This research was supported under the Australian who facilitated our inspecions of courts and remote facili- Judy Crabb, Dhrui Parekh, Rebekah Lee, Marcela Mora, Research Council’s Linkage Grant funding scheme (2008- ies. We would also like to thank key representaives of and Adriana Calderon. The project team especially wish to 2010), project number LP0776248. The project, Gateways our Industry Partners: The Hon. Jusice Richard Refshauge acknowledge Diane Jones (PTW Architects), Mark Hanson to Jusice: improving video-mediated communicaions (Supreme Court ACT; formerly ACT DPP) and Jon White and Rod Louey-Gung (ICE Design) who dedicated so much for jusice paricipants, was led by Professor David Tait (ACT DPP), Mark Hanson (ICE Design), Ray Warnes (The of their ime in assising us with the experiment. The (University of Western Sydney). The team members are Department of the Atorney General, WA), Lena Kimenko- project team would also like to acknowledge the work of listed below. swki (Jumbo Vision), Dr James Robertson (Professorial Esther Dufy, Rosheen Meagher, Tamara Donnelly and Ingo Fellow, UC; formerly AFP), Graeme Stevenson (Producion Kumic as project managers. Chief Invesigators: David Tait, Chris Lennard, Gregory Audio), John Griin (formerly with Department of Jusice, Missingham, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Terry Carney, Victoria), Diane Jones (PTW Architects; Adjunct Professor How to cite this publicaion: Deborah Blackman, Greg Batye, Alice Richardson, Graham BE UNSW), Dr Kate Auty (Commissioner for Sustainability, Rowden, E., Wallace, A., Tait, D., Hanson, M. & Jones, Brawn. Victoria; Adjunct Professor, La Trobe University). D. (2013). Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings. Industry Partners: The Department of Jusice (Victoria), The experiment conducted as part of this research was University of Western Sydney: Sydney. Accessed from: The Department of the Atorney General (Western made possible through the generosity of the Victorian htp://www.uws.edu.au/jusice/jusice/publicaions Australia), The Australian Federal Police, The ACT Director Department of Jusice, the owners of the County Court of Public Prosecuions, ICE Design, Jumbo Vision, PTW of Victoria (The Liberty Group) and the contribuions of A note on prining: Architects and Producion Audio Services. industry partners PTW Architects and ICE Design. Par- This document has been formated to print A4, landscape, icular thanks are due to the judiciary and staf of the double-sided with short-edge binding. PhD Candidates: Emma Rowden and Anne Wallace County Court of Victoria: Peter Anderson (The Liberty (Australian Post-graduate Award Industry scholarship Group), David Hoy (In Court Technology Manager), Rudy COVER IMAGE: Remote Witness in Enhanced Condiion, as seen recipients) Monteleone (Victorian Juries Commissioner), Margaret from the prosecutor’s perspecive in the courtroom - taken dur- Jones (Oice of the ACT Director of Public Prosecuions) ing the Gateways experiment in the County Court of Victoria, The authors would like to thank all of those who agreed to and Alastair Ross (Naional Initute of Forensic Science). August 2009 (© Emma Rowden). be interviewed, and the various administrators and staf Thanks also to our wonderful experiment support crew:

2 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings foreword

While courts are conservaive insituions, and Courts and jusice departments have a duty of To provide more efecive and less disrupive that is oten jusiied, they are not immune to care to court users; they should ensure that paricipaion in court processes by vulnerable changes in society, nor should they be. In paric- people are treated courteously and their needs and expert witnesses, as well as prisoners or ular, we have seen in recent imes the signiicant for informaion and safety are met. One group protected witnesses, remote faciliies are now developments of technology used to enhance of users who require special atenion are vul- being provided to allow their paricipaion the delivery of jusice by courts in many ways. nerable witnesses, especially child witnesses without the need to enter the courtroom physi- and adult vicims of sexual assault. Another cally. These faciliies may be purpose-built, that Indeed, the introducion of modern forms of such group are witnesses, defendants or accused is, designed speciically for that purpose, or they technology into courtrooms has been one of persons who live substanial distances from the may have uses beyond providing an entry point the most signiicant changes in courts in recent court. to the court via videoconferencing. decades. None of these technologies has had a greater impact than videoconferencing and Yet a further issue is caused by the increasing This research reveals that remote paricipa- CCTV, which, as this report notes, is now widely reliance of courts on tesimony from experts, ion faciliies have oten been sub-standard – used in courts for a variety of purposes. who may be based interstate or overseas. Even cramped, clutered, uncomfortable and not con- for those based locally, but especially for those ducive to providing an appropriate environment This study, a partnership between jusice agen- further away, ime spent travelling or waiing for the remote paricipant. Video technologies cies and researchers, set out to address an im- in court is ime not spent on processing other have oten been inadequate, with restricted portant issue for jusice policy: how to improve cases or dealing with clients or paients for those vision and sound both for the court and the wit- the quality of paricipaion in court processes experts who are not full-ime forensic experts. ness and limited eye-contact. Court processes using these technologies. As the former Director Reducing this ime can save costs for paries as have not always adjusted to video technologies, of Public Prosecuions for the Australian Capital well as minimising disrupion to busy pracices with inadequate preparaion of witnesses and Territory, I was enthusiasic about the project and those they serve. insuicient orientaion for the remote interac- and was pleased to join it as an industry partner; ion. other industry partners included the jusice de- There are also concerns about implicaions for partments of Victoria and Western Australia. cost, safety and security associated with trans- The Gateways study developed ‘enhanced’ proc- poring defendants to and from courts for pre- esses and environments for remote witnesses liminary hearings or bail applicaions. and, in an experimental situaion in the Victo- foreword 3 rian County Court, measured the impact of any courts will get even beter value out of invest- For my part, it was a fascinaing, educaive, eye- change on both witnesses and ‘jurors’. ments in infrastructure when court processes opening and very saisfying experience. are adapted to change the way remote parici- Having experience as both a liigator and now as pants are oriented and introduced to the court- I thank very much all of the paricipants for the a judicial oicer, I am very aware of the impor- room. valuable contribuion they made to this project tance of this study and the value of its outcomes and through it, hopefully, to a beter jusice to courts struggling to address the need to make I strongly endorse the guidelines and recom- system. best use of the available technology. mend that courts, other jusice agencies, jusice departments, architects, planners and all in- The set of guidelines presented here provides volved in the administraion of jusice through detailed recommendaions about how to use re- the court system pay careful regard to them and mote witness faciliies more efecively in court the implicaions they have for a healthier jusice processes. Proposals in these guidelines include: system and courts that beter meet the needs of making remote witness rooms more comforta- those required to paricipate in it, oten not of The Honourable Jusice Richard Refshauge ble, with access to natural light and visual relief; their own wish. Supreme Court of the ACT improving eye-contact between the remote 20th March 2013 paricipant and the person with whom they are This research most successfully brought together speaking in the court; providing diferent views scholars from many diferent disciplines. It re- of the court for vulnerable and expert witnesses; sulted in the successful compleion of two doc- and providing a second channel for display toral theses: Dr Emma Rowden in Architecture technologies. This document provides a valuable and Professor Anne Wallace in Law. Its undoubt- resource for those developing new courts, such ed success was also very much dependent on as those in the ACT. the contribuions of many judicial oicers, court administrators and court staf, who donated ime The guidelines also suggest that, while improv- and experise to contribute as paricipants in the ing the technology and environment will result research. in improved outcomes for remote paricipaion,

4 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings table of contents

1. execuive summary 6 2. introducion 19 3. policy context 20 4. gateways to jusice project overview 24 5. synthesis of key indings: design and operaional guidelines to improve the remote encounter 45 5.1 prior 52 5.2 thresholds 62 5.3 the encounter 68 5.4 aterwards 76 6. ‘before and ater’ case studies 80 6.1 a remote space in a heritage building 81 6.2 exising purpose-built remote spaces 86 7. glossary 88 8. selected bibliography 91 appendix a: table of australian legislaion enabling remote paricipaion appendix b: guidelines for the design and construcion of remote court faciliies and videolinked courtrooms appendix c: guidelines for selecing mulipurpose remote spaces for court appearances appendix d: suggested proforma for collecing data on videolink use

table of contents 5 1. execuive summary

Introducion • The legislaion guiding its use; This report details the indings and recommenda- • The built environment in the courtroom and in ions of a three-year Australian Research Council the remote locaion; Linkage Project Gateways to Jusice: improving • Court processes, protocols and rituals; video-mediated communicaion for jusice par- • Training regimes provided for courts staf, law- icipants (2008-2011; LP0776248) led by Profes- yers and judicial oicers; sor David Tait of the Jusice Research Group, Uni- • The design and coniguraion of the videolink versity of Western Sydney. This project set out technology itself. to invesigate whether the use of videolinks1 in jusice seings was achieving its objecives and to This research found that remote court parici- make recommendaions to improve its use, with paion is more likely to be successful if each of a paricular focus on the use of videolinks to take these elements are designed to complement one evidence in court. another.

This study found that current pracices do not Videolink Use In Australian Courts necessarily ensure that the beneits promised by Moves towards increasing use of videolink tech- new technologies are being realised to their full nologies and remote paricipaion in court pro- extent. As courts are recognising the need for a ceedings need to be viewed within the following holisiic approach in other areas of their opera- insituional policy context: ions, this report conirms that the use of this technology should be considered within a frame- • The shit from an insituional framework to a work that includes: service-provider model; • Eforts to make courts more accessible; 1 ‘Videolinks’ is a term used throughout to encom- • Increasing diversity and specialisaion of court pass both Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) and videocon- types; and, ferenced enabled video-mediated communicaions. See • Increased concern about security. glossary for further informaion.

6 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings The use of videolinks has expanded considerably 4. To develop best pracice guidelines for the a) LITERATURE REVIEW from their original purposes: to allow vulnerable most efecive use of remote access faciliies in Diferent types of informaion and research sur- and child witnesses to give evidence remotely dur- the administraion of jusice. rounding videolink use in courts were analysed. ing a trial and to link defendants to the court from These included criminological studies of videolink prisons. Videolinks are now used for a mulitude These aims were to be met by the three main re- use in courts, government reports, academic of other purposes that are detailed on pages 21-2 search quesions: commentaries, and literature from the disciplines of this report, and the range of uses seems to be 1. How are video communicaion faciliies of media, communicaions studies, architecture, coninually expanding. However, perhaps surpris- currently used for jusice purposes? design and environmental psychology. ingly, our research found that courts generally do 2. What is the relaive impact on presence not keep systemaic records of videolink use. and quality of communicaion of upgrading the Key indings from the literature review: technological environment of video communica- • Most studies of videolink use in courts address ion faciliies, the social and built form environ- quesions from within a single disciplinary per- The Gateways to Jusice Project ment, and both of these together? specive; The Gateways to Jusice Project had four aims: 3. How can video hearings be introduced • Architectural perspecives and other analy- 1. To describe how the social, technological into regular jusice processes in a way that best ses of the design of remote spaces are lacking, and built environments of remote witness facili- promotes efecive communicaion and sense of paricularly regarding what features consitute ies afect the experience of jusice paricipants. presence? ‘healthy’ environments that promote wellbeing 2. To idenify the factors that produce a and improved human performance; greater sense of presence for users of remote • There is a focus on its use for witnesses and de- witness faciliies and facilitate more efecive Methods fendants as opposed to other users, such as the communicaion between them and paricipants To ensure robust indings, data was collected remote expert or the remote judge; elsewhere. through a variety of diferent methods. The • The ritual elements of courtroom experiences, 3. To measure the impact of selected chang- methods and the key indings they produced are including establishing distances, recognising hier- es in the design and use of remote witness facili- summarised below. archy and being ‘on show’ were recognised in the ies on a sense of presence and quality of com- commentaries, but were insuiciently recognised municaion. in the experimental studies and evaluaions;

1. executive summary 7 • Studies from the disciplines of media and com- ognizable, paricularly in the case of interstate videolinked court proceedings in over 40 court- municaion studies can be helpful in idenifying witnesses, statute law appears to have developed houses and 20 remote sites. Researchers col- features of technology-mediated communica- on a fairly ad hoc basis. lected data on a range of spaces that a remote ions that may contribute to their efeciveness • There is no complete and comprehensive legis- paricipant might experience. They documented for paricular tasks. laive provision for the use of videolinks in courts the quanitaive elements (such as room size, in any Australian jurisdicion; number of windows, locaion proximate to other b) ANALYSIS OF LEGISLATION AND CASE-LAW • There is a presumpive use for vulnerable and places in the building, the physical arrangement Legislaion in all Australian jurisdicions permits child witnesses; of furniture, the items of technology present), as remote paricipaion for a range of purposes, • Approaches to paricipaion by defendants vary; well as more qualitaive elements (such as the including giving evidence (both for witnesses • Judicial oicers have broad discreionary pow- quality of inishes, the quality of the technol- deemed vulnerable and those who are not) and ers in relaion to the use videolinks; ogy, the ambience of the room, and the extent linking defendants in custody to courts. A review • Only some operaional issues are addressed in to which the technology had been integrated into of legislaion enabling remote paricipaion in all the legislaion; the built fabric). Australian States and Territories was conducted • Legislaion, court rules and pracice direcions for this project (see Appendix A), as well as in- include litle in the way of performaive stand- Key indings from site visits: ternaional pracices (e.g. EU and the USA). Sub- ards; • There are a diverse range of types, sizes and ordinate legislaion was also examined, as well • There is limited atenion to technical stand- scales of spaces used for remote court paricipa- as court rules and pracice direcions. Case-law ards; ion, some of which are used solely for videolinks from all Australian jurisdicions that interpreted • Case-law reveals that discreionary powers to to courts, others of which are used for other pur- and applied these provisions was also analysed impose condiions appear to be under-uilised; poses when not linked to court; to ascertain to what extent courts were requiring • Unlike some overseas jurisdicions, there is a • Many remote faciliies could be described as performaive standards to be met when permit- lack of detailed guidelines to help guide decision- ‘unhealthy’ spaces when examined from the per- ing the use of videolinks. making processes. specive of the environmental psychology literature that describe spaces promoing wellbeing; Key indings from legislaion and case law: c) SITE VISITS • Remote spaces are generally small, bland and • Although some atempts at uniformity are rec- The research team analysed sites involved with anonymous in character;

8 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings • Remote rooms oten lack access to natural light • There is oten an unnatural dislocaion of the that this oten led remote paricipants to act in a and views; sound of the voice from image of speaker; manner out of keeping with a courtroom seing; • The videolink equipment dominates the design; • Audio quality is oten poor with voices sounding • The pracice of sentencing by videolink result- • The videolink equipment is not well integrated unnatural and lacking in clarity. ing in a loss of impact on the defendant and the to the built environment, oten appearing on a wider community. moveable trolley; e) SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS • The remote paricipant generally has limited Interviews were conducted with 61 stakeholders, f) THE GATEWAYS EXPERIMENT views of the courtroom onscreen; including judicial oicers, lawyers, court staf, ex- This was a controlled experiment designed to test • There are oten diiculies viewing documents pert witnesses, remote court oicers, court ad- the relaionship between some of the variables over the link. ministrators and architects experienced in court that had been ideniied as having the potenial buildings. to impact on the success of video-mediated en- d) OBSERVATIONS AND EXPERIENCES OF RE- counters. It focused on one paricular type of MOTE PARTICIPATION Key indings from semi-structured interviews: encounter: between the witness (expert or non- The research team observed remote and dis- A diverse range of opinions were expressed, but expert) and the courtroom paricipants who re- crete courtroom seings. Observaion indings overall, videolinks were seen as a posiive step. ceive their evidence (lawyers, judicial oicers and revealed discrepancies between the legislaion Where concerns were voiced, they focused on: jurors). and pracice notes describing how remote par- • The adequacy of the environmental and tech- icipaion should occur, and what was happening nological condiions of the remote space and vid- Four condiions were tested, including one conin pracice. eolink; trol condiion. The control condiion involved a • The efect of the perceived “remoteness” of ‘standard’ environment and ‘standard’ process Key indings from observaions and experiences: the remote paricipant on the impressions of that (BB) and the three experimental condiions were: • The image of remote paricipant is oten dis- person formed by the jury; enhanced environment and enhanced process torted; • The ability to assess credibility and the capacity (AA), standard environment and enhanced proc- • There are diiculies with simulaing eye-con- to confront the remote paricipant; ess (BA), and enhanced environment and stand- tact; • The efect of appearing from the remote space ard process (AB). Paricipants included 170 mock • There are diiculies displaying muliple images; on the behaviour of remote paricipants, feeling jurors, 64 lay witnesses and 21 expert witnesses.

1. executive summary 9 Witnesses viewed a short extract from a ilm Synthesis of the indings 4. Defendant showing a shooing incident, and they were then The study had two major indings: 5. Judicial oicer escorted to the remote witness room. Jurors ob- Firstly, the way in which videolink technology 6. Lawyer served the four remote witnesses giving their is implemented has a real impact on service 7. Public gallery tesimony, represening each of the four condi- delivery, and therefore jusice outcomes; how 8. Media (press gallery) ions. The responses of both witnesses and ju- videolinks are used, their design and operaion, 9. Interpreters. rors to these condiions was measured from their maters. responses to quesionnaires administered at the In the operaional and design guidelines we iden- conclusion of each witness’s tesimony (see pag- Secondly, a successful videolinked court en- ify the recommendaions that have more spe- es 33-34 for more details on methodology). counter requires careful consideraion of the ciic relevance to a paricular type of paricipant technology, environments, personnel, protocols where appropriate. Key indings from the experiment: and legislaion that enable their use. These fac- • Improving the process (that is, the way the re- tors work together and none of them should be Remote for access, remote for separaion2 mote paricipant is informed, supported and ori- ignored or viewed in isolaion. The type of the Reasons for paricipaing remotely may also be entated to the courtroom) has a posiive efect, remote paricipant, the reason for their remote deined as either: and improving the environment has a posiive ef- paricipaion, and the nature of the remote space 1. Remote for providing access: fect. However, improving both has a compound- from which they appear, are key factors in de- - giving evidence ing efect; termining the way in which these components - for appearing (e.g. remote defendant) • The quality of the environment of the remote should be conigured to achieve the best result. - atending (e.g. family in remote locaion) space is noiced by those in the courtroom; - presiding (remote judge) • Improving the quality of the videolink technol- Types of remote paricipants - advocaing (remote lawyer), or, ogy is noiceable by those in the remote space We ideniied nine main categories of potenial 2. Remote for providing separaion: and the courtroom; remote paricipants: - giving evidence (vulnerable or protected wit- • Improved technology and environment in the 1. Lay witness remote space indicates an improved interacion 2. Vulnerable witness 2 Rowden (2011): 67. Full bibliographic with those in the courtroom. 3. Expert witness details of all references can be found in the “selected bibliography”, page 91.

10 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings ness) Assistance to the remote paricipant: - atending (paries in conlict, disrupive defend- We ideniied two diferent types of remote ap- ant). pearances: 1. Assisted appearances: some remote par- Types of remote spaces icipants are accompanied by a remote court Remote Spaces can be classiied according to oicer, or other support person (e.g. child wit- whether or not they are used for other purposes, nesses; defendants appearing from prison). The or, whether they are used solely for videolinks. remote court oicer operates the technology and They are either: may provide addiional informaion about the 1. Dedicated remote faciliies: These are court process to the paricipant, or, generally purpose-built remote rooms and as- 2. Unassisted appearances: some remote sociated spaces that are only used for videolinks paricipants are alone in the remote space (e.g. and are not used for any other purpose. Exam- most expert witnesses) and have the responsibil- ples of this type include the Remote Witness ity for acceping the videolink call, and seing up Facility within or atached to a courthouse, or a the room beforehand. videoconferencing room in a prison, or, 2. Mulipurpose remote spaces: These spac- Two rooms in one: what the court sees and what es are only occasionally linked to the courtroom. the remote paricipant sees For instance, our study found that a remote court Any remote space can be seen as divided in two: paricipant might ind themselves in seings as Remote Room a = what the remote paricipant varied as a hospital chapel or tea room, a busi- sees of the space (when seated); and, ness centre videoconference room, a university Remote Room b = what the court sees of the re- oice, a mulifuncion meeing room, or a room mote paricipant and the remote space (Figure that doubles as a storeroom. E1).3 Figure E1: Plan of the remote space showing ‘two rooms in one’ - demonstraing that what the remote paricipant sees of the room (remote room a) is diferent from 3 Rowden (2011): 332 & Appendix H. what the courtroom sees (remote room b). (© Emma Rowden).

1. executive summary 11 Recommendaions design (addressing the technological and envi- The following tables on pages 13-16 provide a Our recommendaions are conigured around ronmental condiions) of the videolink. summary of key strategies to operaionalise the four stages of “the remote court encounter”: indings of this research. A more detailed version General Recommendaions: of these recommendaions can be found on pag- 1. Prior: What happens before the day of • The court should consider the nature of es 45-79. the court appearance; the evidence to be given (traumaic personal evi- 2. Thresholds: A threshold is the transiion dence versus non-controversial and non-personal between one state, or place, with another. This evidence) when considering addiional support. stage refers to what occurs at the remote space • All vulnerable witnesses should be as- on the day of the court encounter. Thresholds sisted, as the addiional cogniive load caused by may be crossed muliple imes and at several the operaion of the technology can cause undue points during a remote appearance. They may stress. take the form of a physical threshold (moving in • Unassisted remote witnesses may require and out of the remote room), as well as a techno- addiional checking to ensure that they under- logical threshold (connecing and disconnecing stand instrucions and/or what is occurring. the videolink to the court). • Remote room b (see Figure E1 on p11) 3. The Encounter: What occurs over the should always frame the remote paricipant in a course of the videolink; and, way that gives the impression to those watching 4. Aterwards: What occurs ater its conclu- from the courtroom that the remote paricipant sion (both short-term and longer-term acions). is being treated with dignity and respect, and that there is nothing distracing or diminishing the ap- Our recommendaions and design guidelines pearance of the remote paricipant. idenify and address key issues that arise at each stage, and are either to do with suggested changes to the process (addressing court protocols, procedures and administraive maters), or the

12 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings summary of key strategies for improving the remote encounter

KEY ISSUES: “PRIOR” IMPROVING THE PROCESS IMPROVING THE DESIGN

5.1.1 INFRASTRUCTURE AND PRO- • Maintain a central registry of faciliies • Adopt minimum standards for opimum CEDURES FOR VIDEOLINKS available for videolinks design of remote witness faciliies and for • Streamline the process for court selecing sites suitable for occasional links permissions to courts (see Appendices B & C) • Standardise procedures for booking the • Design technology at same ime as the link and rescheduling the link built environment • Fine-tune the design of the remote faciliies during the commissioning stage and document opimum condiions in central registry 5.1.2 PREPARING FOR EACH • Brief the remote paricipant about a) • Tailor the coniguraion of the videolink VIDEOLINKED ENCOUNTER what to bring with them; b) what to wear; for each individual case and, c) what to expect • Plan for the possible need to reconigure • Test and modify the link as necessary with the technology, the courtroom and/or the the remote paricipant prior to their sched- remote space uled appearance • Establish pre-set camera coniguraions • Provide the remote paricipant with infor diferent types of remote paricipants formaion and support on the day of their • Provide capacity: appearance - to display documents and exhibits • Provide orientaion to the court for all re- - to display a wide variety of mote paricipants courtroom views • Ensure day-to-day maintenance for dedi- - for a self-view cated remote faciliies and for mulipurpose remote spaces • Allow for pre-and post-court videolinks as required

1. executive summary 13 KEY ISSUES: “THRESHOLDS” IMPROVING THE PROCESS IMPROVING THE DESIGN

5.2.1 WAITING IN SAFETY • Provide informaion for remote parici- • Provide an entry sequence that ensures pant as to approximate duraion of waiing safety and privacy ime (20 minutes away; 5 minutes away; 60 • Provide adequate faciliies in waiing ar- seconds before appearance, etc) eas (e.g. tea bench, toilets) with a pleas- • Provide appropriate reading material for ant outlook, painings and natural light the type of remote paricipant in the wait- • Provide a second line of communicaion ing area between remote space and the court 5.2.2 TRANSITION FROM THE • Provide informaion and support when • Exaggerate the threshold through archi- OUTSIDE WORLD TO THE COURT the unassisted remote paricipant needs to tectural features (such as lighing, change SPACE accept the videolink call in ceiling height, change in materials, • Greet and welcome the remote parici- deep architraves, or colour) to help clarify pant to the court the disincion between the remote court • Check sound and vision is adequate by space and the waiing areas asking if all paricipants can see and hear • Make clear the disincion between be- • Check the comfort of the remote parici- ing “in court” and “out of court” through pant signals and/or technology

5.2.3 BEING IN COURT • Provide a clear signal to indicate that the • The remote space should convey a sense remote space is ‘live’ to the courtroom, or of respect and dignity towards the re- not (e.g. On or Of signalling) mote paricipant and be evident to those • Create a formal atmosphere to assist the watching from the courtroom remote paricipant to maintain a demean- • The view of the court should convey the our appropriate for the court seing presence of the court to the paricipant • The remote facility should be comfortable, spacious, clean and private, ideally with an outlook and natural light.

14 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings KEY ISSUES: “THE ENCOUNTER” IMPROVING THE PROCESS IMPROVING THE DESIGN

• Uphold presentaion standards during the 5.3.1 PRESENTING THE REMOTE (No design issues have been noted here as link, e.g. good audibility; size of paricipant PARTICIPANT TO THE COURT these should be addressed at other stages onscreen is life-size, etc. of the process) • If standards are not met, act immediately to recify (including haling proceedings to follow necessary steps) • Provide capacity for muliple views during a videolink • Be alert for distracions and unanicipated efects • Exert judicial control over the remote space 5.3.2 PRESENTING THE COURTROOM TO • Uphold presentaion standards during the THE REMOTE PARTICIPANT link

5.3.3 DEALING WITH BREAKDOWNS • Take a broad view of what consitutes a AND FAILURES breakdown or failure and have established coningency plans • Encourage all paricipants to noify the judicial oicer if modiicaions are required or if a breakdown has occurred • Judicial oicers should facilitate management of remote space, and support for remote paricipant • Provide training for judicial oicers as to the capacity of the technology

1. executive summary 15 KEY ISSUES: “AFTERWARDS” IMPROVING THE PROCESS IMPROVING THE DESIGN

5.4.1 IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE • Deine clearly when the videolink has • Provide faciliies to enable pre- and post- LINK HAS FINISHED ended for the remote paricipant and in- appearance links between remote parici- court paricipants pant and their support person and/or their • Provide de-brieing informaion to the lawyer (see Appendix B) remote paricipant to ensure they have adequate follow-up with support person and/ or their lawyer

5.4.2 ONGOING • Undertake regular reviews of videolink • Regularly update the design guidelines procedures (establish a working party) for remote faciliies and courtrooms (Ap- • Obtain feedback from court users on the pendix B), and selecion of mulipurpose remote court experience remote faciliies (Appendix C) based on • Create regular opportuniies for relecion feedback and recommendaions of review and feedback from the judiciary, court staf process and others appearing by videolink • Maintain accurate records of both CCTV and videoconference use, as well as other plaforms such as Skype, to help target improvements (see Appendix D for suggested proforma)

16 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings Publicaions arising from the research Rowden, E., Wallace, A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2010). Contact details of the authors Sentencing by videolink: Up in the Air? Criminal Law Jour- nal, 34(6), 363-384. The indings of this research have been published Dr Emma Rowden Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Research Fellow in a variety of diferent formats, and further pub- Wallace, A. (2008). ‘Virtual Jusice in the Bush’: The use of Faculty of Design, Architecture & Building licaion is ongoing. The following is a list of pub- court technology in remote and regional Australia. Journal University of Technology Sydney licaions to date that readers may ind useful for of Law, Informaion and Science, 19, 1-21. [email protected] further reference. Ph: +61 (0)2 9514 8091 Wallace, A., & Rowden, E. (2009). ‘Gateways to Jusice: The Use of Videoconferencing Technology to Take Evidence in Professor Anne Wallace Rowden, E. (forthcoming). The Remote Witness Facility Australian Courts ‘ paper presented to the 9th European for vulnerable and child witnesses: new perspecives on Head, School of Law & Jusice Conference on e-Government, 29-30 June 2009, University Edith Cowan University an emerging spaial typology. In Brancos, P. (Ed.) Sociolo- of Westminster, London, UK. In Dr Dan Remenyi (ed) 9th gia do(s) Espaço(s) da Jusiça: Diálogos Interdisciplinares. [email protected] European Conference on e-Government, 29-30 June 2009 Ph: +61 (0)8 6304 2655 Coimbra: CES/Almedina. Proceedings. London: Academic Publishing Internaional. Professor David Tait Rowden, E. (2013). Virtual Courts and Puing ‘Summary’ Wallace, A. (2011). Jusice and the ‘Virtual’ Expert: Using back into ‘Summary Jusice’: Merely Brief, or Unjust? In J. Jusice Research Group, University of Western Sydney Remote Witness Technology to take Forensic Evidence. Un- [email protected] Simon, N. Temple & R. Tobe (Eds.), Architecture and Jusice: published PhD Thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney. Judicial Meanings in the Public Realm (pp. 101-113). Farn- Ph: +61 (0)2 9772 6785 ham, Surrey: Ashgate. Wallace, A. (forthcoming). ‘Using Videolink to take Forensic Mark Hanson Evidence – Lessons from an Australian Case study’ Interna- Director, ICE Design Rowden, E. (2011). Remote Paricipaion and the Distrib- ional Journal of Evidence and Proof. uted Court: an approach to court architecture in the age of Level 1, 808 Glenferrie Road Hawthorn VIC 3122 video-mediated communicaions. Unpublished PhD Thesis. [email protected] University of Melbourne, Melbourne. Abstract available at Ph: +61 (0)3 9815 3032 . Diane Jones Adjunct Professor, BE UNSW Director, PTW Architects Level 13, 9 Castlereagh St Sydney NSW 2000 [email protected] Ph: +61 (0)2 9232 5877

1. executive summary 17 Figure 1: Remote Court Paricipaion - this map demonstrates the diferent types of court users that are currently access- ing court proceedings in Australian courts (© Emma Rowden, taken from Rowden, 2011: 84).

18 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings 2. introducion

This report ideniies and examines the issues as- The guidelines, set out in ‘synthesis of key ind- thy with the changes imposed by the technology; sociated with implemening videolinks in jusice ings’ (pp45-79), provide a list of acions that • the training regimens provided for staf and seings.4 It reports on the indings of a three-year courts should consider in implemening remote judicial oicers; and, Australian Research Council Linkage Project Gate- communicaion technologies, with detailed spec- • the design and coniguraion of the videolink ways to Jusice: improving video-mediated com- iicaions provided where possible. It is likely that technology itself. municaion for jusice paricipants. The Gateways prioriies will be deined according to local needs, to Jusice project invesigated whether the use of with some faciliies providing more comprehen- Our research supports the contenion that with remote paricipaion technology was achieving sive services than others. the distribuion of court space by the introduc- its objecives and set out to make recommenda- ion of videolinks, court rituals and protocols ions to improve its use. Previous approaches to analysing the use of vid- should be amended accordingly. In other words, eolink technologies in court environments have remote court paricipaion is more likely to be The discussion and recommendaions outlined tended to take an unproblemaic view of the successful if the physical environment, the tech- in this document are based on indings that technology. In many accounts the audio-visual nology, court rituals and protocols are designed emerged from: equipment that enables remote paricipaion is to complement each other, rather than assuming a) a review of the Australian and internaional lit- viewed as a tool, but not as something that nec- that exising pracices will necessarily work with- erature on the use of videolinks in courts; essarily changes or alters the nature of the inter- in this new court environment. b) interviews with stakeholders in Australia; acion. As courts are recognising the need for a c) site visits to courts and videoconferencing facil- holisiic approach in other areas of their opera- We begin this report by examining the policy iies across Australia, as well as Germany, United ions, this report conirms that technology should context that has given rise to the need for this Kingdom, Ireland, France, Luxembourg, the Neth- be planned within a holisiic framework that in- research, before outlining the research project erlands, and several internaional courts for com- cludes: itself. A detailed synthesis of the indings is ac- paraive purposes; and, • the legislaion guiding its use; companied by design and operaional guidelines d) an experiment comparing condiions in remote • the nature of the built environment in the to assist courts, and others, in implemening our court faciliies. courtroom and in the remote locaion; recommendaions. This is followed by two case • the extent to which the design of court proc- studies to illustrate how these recommendaions esses, protocols and rituals are adapted in sympa- might be implemented in diferent seings. 4 See glossary for our deiniion of ‘videolinks’.

2. introduction 19 3. policy context

3.1 Recent Shits in Australian Court increasing focus on providing beter informaion Policy and support to paricular groups of court users, Shit from Insituional Framework to Service- such as vulnerable and child witnesses (see Fig- Provider Model ure 2). Coupled with this is a trend towards pro- The Parker report, Courts and the Public, released viding more accessible court buildings and jusice in 1998 ideniied a shit in the relaionship be- faciliies. tween courts and their users from court-centric to a customer-centric focus.5 In the years since, Diversity in Court Types courts have increasingly sought to measure the Associated with the focus on accessibility has saisfacion of stakeholders with their court ex- been an increasing trend towards specialisaion perience, and to design court faciliies and proc- that has taken several forms. There has been in- esses with a more direct focus on their needs. creasing specialisaion in types of courts, and a proliferaion of specialist lists and divisions within Making Courts More Accessible courts. In part, the impetus for this has been a The trend to the service-provider model has di- desire to improve customer service by provid- rected more atenion to the needs of paricular ing more eicient disposiion of maters. Judicial types of court users, including indigenous peo- oicers who specialise in a paricular case-type ples, people who are homeless, people with drug are empowered to acively case manage their or alcohol dependency, and vicims of sexual as- lists, and might be expected to deliver faster and sault or family violence. The extent to which such more robust outcomes. The growth of tribunals groups experience full access to the courts, that and the move to ‘therapeuic’ jusice processes, is, access to the full range of court faciliies and such as drug courts, mental health courts and specialist courts for indigenous ciizens are fur- Figure 2: Model of Courtroom including remote wit- services relevant to their needs, has been iden- ness videolink (top let of image behind witness box) - iied as a signiicant issue. There has been an ther evidence of this trend. In the later, specialist as found at the Child Witness Unit in Melbourne. Such experise is intended to deliver beter outcomes iniiaives help provide addiional informaion and 5 Parker (1998): 26-28. Full details of all references by contribuing to long-term resoluion of under- support to court users to make the court experience can be found in the ‘select bibliography’, pp91-94. more accessible (© Emma Rowden).

20 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings lying problems that result in infringement of the evidence remotely during a trial and to link de- have become an indispensible part of the way the criminal law. fendants to the court from prisons. Videolinks jusice system operates in his state.6 are now used for a mulitude of other purposes. Climate of Security 3.2 Enabling Legislaion for Remote As the drive for accessibility has accelerated, at The current study found that videolinks are used Paricipaion in Court Processes: the Aus- the same ime another, perhaps conlicing, trend so extensively in Australia that police staions, tralian Context7 has emerged. In the decade since 11th Septem- prisons and remand centres could also be consid- Legislaion in all Australian jurisdicions permits ber 2001, courts, like other civic buildings, have ered important hubs of the network, alongside remote paricipaion for a range of purposes, operated in a climate of increased concern about courts (see Figure 3, p22). Across the jusice sys- including giving evidence (both for witnesses the potenial for terrorist atacks on public insi- tem, videoconferencing is now being used to: deemed vulnerable and those who are not) and tuions and oicials. This has heightened exising • conduct preliminary psychiatric assessments linking defendants in custody to courts. Although concerns about the potenial security risks asso- for people in remote communiies; some atempts at uniformity are recognizable, ciated with court proceedings, resuling in the im- • facilitate meeings with legal representaives paricularly in the case of interstate witnesses, plementaion of ‘airport-style’ security processes for defendants on remand; statute law appears to have developed on a fairly at the entrance to many court buildings in large • prepare probaion reports; and, ad hoc basis. metropolitan or suburban city areas. There have • conduct parole hearings. also been increased concerns about the security This has been a product of the difering impera- risks of transporing prisoners to and from courts The rapid increase in frequency of use is also a ives for its use which have developed in varying and correcional faciliies. product of the substanial ime and monetary temporal and geographical contexts. The use of savings this technology afords, paricularly for a videoconferencing to take evidence from chil- Australian trend towards Remote Paricipaion country of vast distances like Australia, with some The rapid adopion of videolink technologies by states containing many isolated and remote com- Australian courts needs to be seen in the context muniies. The Chief Jusice of Australia’s largest 6 Second author’s notes of Chief Jusice Wayne of these developments. Their use has expanded state, Western Australia, has said that videolinks Marin‘s “Sentencing by Videolink” presentaion at the Sentencing Conference, Naional Judicial College of Aus- considerably from their original purposes: to al- tralia and ANU, Canberra, Naional Convenion Centre, 6-7 low vulnerable and child witnesses to give their February 2010. 7 See: Wallace (2011): 66-96.

3. policy context 21 dren, vicims of sexual assault and other witnesses classiied as vulnerable, has been one such im- peraive, and has largely sprung from law reform eforts directed to achieving beter outcomes in sexual assault trials. The use of the technology to enable defendants to paricipate in remand, and other preliminary hearings in criminal cases, has been another driving force, prompted by concerns about costs and security risks associated with prisoner transport. The use of this technology to take evidence from witnesses located overseas, or interstate, who might otherwise not be available, or whose atendance might be pro- hibiively expensive, has been another.

Key indings from the analysis of legislaion and the relevant case-law are outlined below in Sec- ion 4.2.b (pp26-29).

3.3. How oten are videolinks used in Aus- tralian Courts?8 Processes that may from ime to ime require remote communicaions include: Figure 3: Beyond the courtroom: the jusice videoconferencing network in 2012. This map demonstrates the diferent • to hear expert witnesses give their evidence; locaions that might be connected by videolink within the overall jusice network, including not just courts, but police, correcions and other government departments (© Emma Rowden, taken from Rowden, 2011: 84). • to provide interpreters; 8 See: Rowden (2011) Ch 3; Wallace (2011): 4-12.

22 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings • to link lawyers to court to conduct direcions Our interviewees and our industry partners re- ions. In Appendix D we suggest a proforma of hearings; and, ported that their use of videolink technologies the kinds of data that might be usefully recorded • for other case management and administra- was increasing overall. However, quanifying the as a staring point. Courts might wish to add oth- ive procedures, pre-trial conferences and precise extent of the use of videoconferencing er types of informaion to collect in order to suit moions; and CCTV enabled links is surprisingly diicult. their paricular needs. • bail applicaions; Records of the use of videolinks are generally not • sentencing hearings; kept in a systemaic fashion in all courts. Without • tribunal hearings; a systemic approach it is diicult to generalise or • civil trials; make meaningful comparisons between courts • appeals; or jurisdicions. The best esimate we have been • mediaion and arbitraion hearings; and, able to obtain indicated a usage rate of approxi- • jury and non-jury criminal trials. mately 10 videoconferenced calls per day (for Victorian Department of Jusice network during Videolinks are also being used to provide judicial 2008). 9 oicers to regional courts. For example, to cover for colleagues who are taken ill, or to inalise out- Our research indicates that courts could beneit standing maters outside of the circuit schedule. from more consistent standards of record-keeping about the use of videolinks to beter inform Courts are also considering the following diverse how to best allocate resources, to pinpoint areas uses including: where the use of these technologies might be in- • muliple defendants or witnesses (some of creased, or more efecively deployed, and to en- whom may be in courts, others appearing re- able comparisons about the use of audio-visual motely, requiring court space for both simul- links generally both within and between jurisdic- taneously); and, • sick or absent jurors. 9 Approximate igure only, due to some incon- sistencies and the lack of detail in record-keeping across courts.

3. policy context 23 4. gateways to jusice project overview

4.1 Project Aims and Research Quesions ion faciliies, the social and built form environ- The Gateways to Jusice Project had four main ment, and both of these together? aims: 3. How can video hearings be introduced 1. To describe how the social, technological into regular jusice processes in a way that best and built environments of remote witness facili- promotes efecive communicaion and sense of ies afect the experience of jusice paricipants. presence? 2. To idenify the factors that produce a greater sense of presence for users of remote 4.2 Methods witness faciliies and facilitate more efecive To ensure robust indings, data was collected communicaion between them and paricipants through a variety of diferent methods. A brief elsewhere. summary of each method, and the key indings 3. To measure the impact of selected chang- they produced, are provided below. es in the design and use of remote witness faciliies on a sense of presence and quality of com- a) LITERATURE REVIEW municaion. Diferent types of informaion and research sur- 4. To develop best pracice guidelines for the rounding videolink use in courts were analysed. most efecive use of remote access faciliies in These include legal analysis of relevant case-law the administraion of jusice. and legislaive provisions, criminological studies of their use, government reports, academic com- These aims were to be met by the three main re- mentaries, literature from the disciplines of me- search quesions: dia and communicaions studies, and literature 1. How are video communicaion faciliies from the disciplines of architecture, design and currently used for jusice purposes? environmental psychology. Figure 4: Photographs from the Gateways 2. What is the relaive impact on presence Experiment conducted in the County Court of Victoria, and quality of communicaion of upgrading the August 2009 (© Emma Rowden) Most of the empirical research and evaluaions technological environment of video communica- conducted to date have focused on the introduc-

24 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings ion of CCTV for child and vulnerable witnesses, KEY FINDINGS FROM THE LITERATURE REVIEW: defendants. Very litle work has been conducted centering on its impact upon the remote witness • Diicult to compare between studies: on the use of videolinks for other purposes, such and the recepion of their evidence.10 There have Diferences in content, context and methods as expert tesimony, remote adjudicaion or ad- also been studies on the use of videoconferenc- make it diicult to compare results and indings vocacy. ing to allow defendants to appear remotely.11 across exising studies.15 • Court protocols, symbolism and ritual Some of these studies have been undertaken in • Singular focus: Exising research is oten ignored: Changes wrought to court rituals (such relaion to pilot projects, and have taken the form focused on one type of paricipant, or a paricular as ‘the journey to court’ and the transiion from of reports to the courts or jusice department12; type of technology, rather than the overall trend the outside world to the court space) are oten others have been undertaken by way of inde- towards the distribuion of the court environ- ignored.17 Other embedded forms of symbolism pendent research.13 While academic commenta- ment across more than one site. such as established distances or recognised hier- tors have discussed and analysed the use of vide- • Architectural perspecives and design archy are insuiciently recognised. olinks from a variety of theoreical perspecives,14 issues marginalised: The importance of the de- • Narrow disciplinary perspecive: Re- the exising literature generally focuses on the sign of the remote space and the coniguraion search also tends to be conducted within disci- efects of videolinks on performaive and power or quality of the technology is oten marginalised plinary boundaries, rather than uilising insights relaions in the courtroom, and the rights of the or completely ignored. A rare excepion can be and experience from a variety of perspecives. accused. Broadly speaking, commentators fall found in the work of Poulin (2004), who system- For example, legal studies generally contain very into two classes: those who see technology as aically lists several major concerns with current litle reference to studies on videoconferencing ofering ways to improve jusice processes, and remote faciliies provided for defendants, noing outside of legal contexts, or to relevant studies those who portray the intrusion of technology as how they impact upon, among other things, the in the ields of communicaions and media gen- a destabilising inluence that will operate to the defendant’s experience of their immediate sur- erally. Studies in the later disciplines that have detriment of the adversarial trial process. roundings.16 invesigated the concept of ‘presence’ can be • Focus on witnesses and defendants: Most helpful in idenifying factors that can contribute 10 e.g. ALRC (1989), Davies & Noon (1991), O’Grady research focuses on implementaion for vulner- to the efecive use of technology for tasks that (1996), Hamlyn et al (2004). able or child witnesses, and to a lesser extent, 11 e.g. Plotnikof & Woolfson (1999). 12 e.g. Cashmore & Trimboli (2005). 17 Excepions to this can be found, e.g. Mulcahy 13 e.g. Taylor & Joudo (2005). 15 Taylor & Joudo (2005): 12. (2008), Vermeys (2008). We elaborate on the concept ‘the 14 e.g. Radul (2007), Mulcahy (2008), Poulin (2004). 16 Rowden (2011). journey to court’ on p63 and p109.

4. gateways to justice project overview 25 involve communicaion to or from a courtroom. chology and behavioural studies. Environmental access to a view of interest, preferably of nature; The concept of ‘social presence’ as ‘the degree psychology provides theories as to how difer- ambient noise levels and acousic performance; to which a medium is perceived as conveying the ent built environments afect human behaviour and, the ability to control temperature to com- presence of the communicaing paricipants’18 and comfort. Since the 1950s, many researchers fortable levels – neither too hot or too cold. is paricularly helpful when analysing videolink working in this ield have established that design use in courts. This encompasses the words con- and the built environment can have an important b) ANALYSIS OF LEGISLATION AND CASE-LAW veyed, the context in which the communicaion impact on our paterns of behaviour and on feel- A comprehensive review of legislaion enabling takes place (including any nonverbal and verbal ings of comfort and well-being.22 Furthermore, remote paricipaion in all Australian States and cues)19 and the extent to which paricipants can diferent environmental seings, atmospheres Territories was conducted for this project (see efecively collaborate or work together.20 The and spaial coniguraions may, to varying de- Appendix A). The legislaion was analysed in ‘richness of the media’ or the extent to which the grees, support or hinder paricular kinds of be- terms of the nature of the statutory provisions videolink coniguraion is ‘able to bridge diferent haviour in individuals and groups. In other words, empowering remote paricipaion, the type of frames of reference, make issues less ambiguous, a paricular behaviour is more or less ‘aforded,’ remote paricipant, and the extent to which the or provide opportuniies for learning in a given depending on the nature of the environment in court was empowered to impose terms and con- ime interval, based on the medium’s capacity which that behaviour is atempted.23 diions on remote paricipaion. Subordinate leg- for immediate feedback, the number of cues and islaion, court rules and pracice direcions, were senses involved, personalizaion, and language There are several sensory dimensions in the built also examined. variety’ is also important.21 environment that are deemed important to ensure psychosocial well-being, and that might ef- Case-law from all Australian jurisdicions that in- It is also criical to place an analysis of remote fect the comfort of a remote court paricipant terpreted and applied these provisions was also court environments and courthouse seings while siing in a remote space. These include: analysed. The focus of that analysis was directed within the vast literature of environmental psy- access to, and direcion of natural light; the type, to the the use and interpretaion of these statu- quality and levels of ariicial light; the size and tory powers to impose terms and condiions on shape of the room and access and egress points; the use of videolinks. 18 Short, Williams and Chrisie (1976): 65-6. 19 Rice (1993): 451-2. 20 Gunawardena (1995): 151-2. 22 Sternberg (2009). 21 Rice (1993): 452-3. 23 Gibson (1977, 1979).

26 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings KEY FINDINGS FROM REVIEWING THE pre-recording of the vicim’s evidence as the pri- consider ‘fairness’, ‘the interests of jusice’ and, LEGISLATION AND CASE-LAW:24 mary source of tesimony. someimes, ‘convenience’. Analysis of the case- • No overarching legislaion: There is no • Varied approaches to paricipaion by law suggests that, in criminal cases, the focus on complete and comprehensive legislaive pro- defendants: In the case of defendants in custody the rights of the accused (paricularly in relaion vision for the use of videolinks in courts in any appearing remotely, the legislaive approaches to evidence that is to be heard against them) will Australian jurisdicion. Rather, there is, in each are more varied. Although there is a general be a highly signiicant consideraion. The cost and jurisdicion, a combinaion of diferent pieces of consensus favouring presumpions in favour of delay avoided by taking the evidence by videolink legislaion directed to diferent categories of re- the use of videolinks for more formal types of will generally weigh more strongly in civil cases mote paricipant (vulnerable witness, defendant) court appearances (remand, pre-trial hearings, than in criminal cases. coupled with more general provisions directed to adjournments), the legislaion generally relects • Some operaional issues addressed: In the use of videolinks to take and receive evidence the view that for more important types of court addiion to broad discreionary powers, the leg- from out of the jurisdicion and, in most cases, appearances, the defendant should be physi- islaion usually also focuses in detail on a number from elsewhere within the jurisdicion. cally present in the court. However, there is less of pracical issues, such as how documents can • Presumpive use for vulnerable witness- consensus around what these more important be shown to, or displayed by, the remote witness, es: There are some variaions between jurisdic- types of hearings should include. Most legisla- how the witness can take an oath or airmaion, ions in the way the evidence of ‘vulnerable wit- ion would presume that trials, appeals and sen- and how laws about contempt of court might be nesses’ is given, and in the types of witnesses tencing would be conducted with the defendant enforced, and powers for the court to deal with a that fall within that category. However, there is physically present in court, although there is no technical failure. a strong trend to more uniform approaches, par- uniform view in relaion to appeals and sentenc- • Focus on seing up: The focus of much icularly in the case of child witnesses in sexual ing. of the delegated or subordinate legislaion (court assault cases, where a presumpion in favour of • Broad discreions: Other than in the case rules, pracice direcions) appears to be largely evidence being given by videolink is now clearly of vulnerable witnesses, legislaion is very gener- on the pracical needs of the court in seing up established. That trend should also be seen in the al in its discreions and appears to provide judicial and running the link (booking the link, noifying context of moves by many jurisdicions towards oicers with broad powers to consider the desir- the court and other paries). ability or otherwise of remote witness links. Dis- • Limited atenion paid to technical stand- 24 This secion is adapted from Wallace (2011): creionary powers typically require the court to ards: Most of the legislaive provisions only en- Chapters 3 and 8.

4. gateways to justice project overview 27 gage with technical standards relevant to the op- the use of these powers subject to condiions set eraion of the videolink to the extent that they out in the enabling legislaion, or court rules. A require the link to provide ‘appropriate persons’ number of courts have formulated guidelines and at either end of the link with sound and vision of direcions for the use of videolinks. Some focus ‘appropriate persons’ at the other end of the link. on witness evidence generally. Others are more Neither the governing, or subordinate legislaion speciically directed to the situaion of a defend- generally contains any detailed speciicaions, for ant appearing from a correcional facility. The example, relaing to camera angle, display size, Australian provisions tend to stand in contrast to audio or visual quality. the detail contained in court procedures in other • Extensive powers to impose condiions countries, such as the Netherlands and the United that appear to be under-uilised: Most of the States. In the US, the Federal Judicial Center has legislaive provisions enable courts to impose laid down quite detailed guidelines for judges re- condiions on the use of remote witness technol- laing to the use of videolinks. They cover aspects ogy. In some jurisdicions, these powers are gen- of the technological and environmental set-up of eral, whereas others provide detailed opions, in- the technology and the way it is used, including cluding condiions related to technical standards, the camera shots, the views that are available to such as: the paries, the handling of exhibits and the mak- - the equipment; ing of a record of proceedings. For example, it is - the layout of cameras; suggested that document (‘evidence’) cameras be - standard and speed of transmission; and available at either end of the remote link to dis- - the quality of communicaion. play exhibits, and that annotaion tools be avail- However, few instances of courts contemplaing, able so that the witness’s atenion can be drawn Figure 5: Site visits revealed not only the conigu- or exercising, these powers to any signiicant ex- to paricular passages on a document or locaion raion of the technology and the design of the tent appear in the case-law. on an exhibit. Rather than rely solely on court remote space, but also indicated potenial design • Lack of detailed guidelines: The word- staf to control the operaion of cameras, in some failings and iniiaives made by staf to train users ing of the provisions in most jurisdicions makes US Federal Courts, lawyers are able to undertake (© Emma Rowden; taken from Rowden 2011: 53).

28 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings this task from special technology-integrated lec- over a three-year period. Researchers collected terns. Courts in the Netherlands have issued very data on a range of spaces that a remote parici- detailed guidelines for the way the technology pant might experience. The research team took should be conigured, with an emphasis on ‘true note of both quanitaive or descripive elements to life’ or providing equivalence to the courtroom (such as room size, number of windows, locaion experience.25 They set out standards in relaion proximate to other places in the building, the to: physical arrangement of furniture, the items of - the coniguraion of the technology; technology present), as well as more qualitaive - lines of sight and percepions; elements (such as the quality of inishes, the am- - lighing and contrast; bience of the room, the quality of the technology - number and type of cameras and - its type, coniguraion and capacity - and the ex- screens; tent to which the technology had been integrated - ease of operaion; into the built fabric). - dealing with documents; and, - audio quality. KEY FINDINGS FROM SITE VISITS: These, in efect, provide a funcional, performa- • Diverse range of remote spaces: There ive speciicaion which the technology is expect- are a diverse range of types, sizes and scales of ed to achieve. spaces used for remote court paricipaion. Of- ten, remote paricipaion occurs from spaces that c) SITE VISITS26 are muli-funcional, and serve other purposes The research team analysed sites involved with when not linked to the court. Interviews with videolinked court proceedings in over 40 court- stakeholders conirmed that Australian courts houses and 20 remote sites. Site visits took place currently link to spaces as diverse as: a meeing Figure 6: Tesing the link in a prison videoconfer- or conference room, a business centre at a com- encing suite (© Emma Rowden). 25 van Roterdam & van den Hoogen 2011. munity centre or commercial oice, a videocon- 26 This secion adapted from Rowden (2011): Chap- ferencing room or oice at a university, a hospital ter 2.

4. gateways to justice project overview 29 chapel or tea room, and a room that is also used • Lack of natural light and views: The pur- d) OBSERVATIONS AND EXPERIENCES OF RE- to store photographic equipment. pose-built remote paricipaion space oten, but MOTE PARTICIPATION • Unhealthy spaces: The condiions ex- not always, lacks natural light or external views, The research team observed remote and dis- hibited in many remote faciliies were oten of with internal lighing that is cold and glaring. crete courtroom seings. Observaion indings a quality that was incompaible with principles • Technology dominates: The remote wit- revealed discrepancies between the legislaion ideniied in architectural and environmental psy- ness is oten posiioned extremely close to the and pracice notes describing how remote par- chology research about spaial features that pro- technology (‘eyeballed’). icipaion should occur, and what was happening mote well-being, reduce anxiety and calm their • Technology not integrated: The vide- in pracice. occupants. oconferencing or CCTV technology is oten not • Remote spaces are generally small, bland well-integrated into the built fabric of the room, KEY FINDINGS FROM OBSERVATIONS: and anonymous in character: For the witness as it is usually placed within a discrete and mov- • Image of remote paricipant distorted who paricipates remotely, the ‘typical’ remote able cabinet or trolley. and not life-like: Remote paricipants oten ap- paricipaion room is a small, bland, anonymous • Limited courtroom views: The remote pear onscreen such that their face takes up a and someimes crowded space, oten also used to paricipant is oten only provided with two screen large proporion of the screen, and is badly lit. store other equipment or furniture. Some more shots of the courtroom: one focused on the judge • Diiculies with simulaing eye-contact: recently built faciliies designed speciically for and the other on the bar table. The two-screen composiion and posiion of the child witnesses were a notable excepion to this • Diiculies viewing documents and camera generally means that the eyes of the re- inding. The spaces used in prisons and other cor- exhibits: Equipment to transmit documents or mote paricipant appear downcast as they switch recional faciliies for videolinks tend to be simi- images of exhibits, such as document cameras, back and forth between two displays (see Figures larly cold and featureless spaces. The view the is not always available. When available, it is not 32-34, pp 72-73). courtoom receives of the space can someimes always set up or installed; there are oten no in- • Diiculies displaying muliple images: If be dominated by signage indicaing the name of strucions to assist the remote paricipant to use the Picture-in-Picture (PIP) opion is used, some- the prison. There is a strong emphasis on secur- it, and litle in the way of technical support avail- imes it can obscure important details of the ing the equipment from the risk of damage by de- able. main image (in a muli-defendant prisonlink we tainees, and on ensuring security in the videolink observed, the PIP even obscured one defendant’s area. face).

30 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings • Unnatural dislocaion of voice from im- e) SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS covered in each interview were made by the re- age of speaker: The voice of the remote parici- Interviews were conducted with over 60 stake- searchers to code, then discuss, review and inter- pant coming through the speakers is oten not co- holders. The opinions of judicial oicers, lawyers, pret the content.27 located to the image of the person when viewed court staf, expert witnesses, and remote court in the courtroom. In other words, the sound rein- oicers were sought, along with court admin- There was a wide spectrum of views regarding re- forcement speakers are oten placed at a distance istrators and architects who help procure court mote paricipaion in court processes. Those in- from the screen where the image of the person buildings. terviewed were self-selected and generally held who is speaking is appearing. In one courtroom strong opinions regarding videolinks either way visited, the sound of the remote witness’ voice Interviews were conducted over a period of 17 and perhaps saw this as a good opportunity to was heard from a sound reinforcement speaker months between October 2008 and February register those opinions in a more formal seing. directly located above the public gallery, while 2010. Interview subjects were iniially recruited This was paricularly the case for those whose the screen with their image was located above by formal leters of invitaion through our part- jobs dealt more directly with the day-to-day prac- the witness box on the other side of the court- ners on the project (Department of Jusice Victo- icaliies and operaion of remote faciliies. These room. ria, Western Australia Department of the Atorney interviews tended to run the longest. • Ampliied speech oten sounds unnatu- General, the Director of Public Prosecuions ACT ral and lacks clarity: The quality and efecive- and the Australian Federal Police). Further inter- KEY FINDINGS FROM THE SEMI-STRUCTURED IN- ness of speech communicaion via a videolink is viewees were ideniied and recruited through a TERVIEWS28: inluenced by the performance of the audio sys- ‘snowballing’ process whereby one interviewee • Diversity of opinions expressed but over- tem and room acousics at both ends. Therefore, suggested another, or during court observaions all, videolinks seen as a posiive development: when a weak link in the technical chain exists, it and site visits. While some structured quesions There were a wide range of views expressed, is common for listeners to receive speech from a were used to ensure certain issues were ad- however almost unanimously it was perceived remote talker that is unnatural sounding and of dressed, in many interviews the issues were cov- that the introducion of videolinks into courts has low intelligibility. At best this requires increased ered mainly as they arose naturally through the cogniive efort to interpret the spoken words. low of conversaion. Interviews were recorded 27 See Rowden (2011): 58, and Rowden, Wallace & At worst speech intelligibility can be so poor that on a digital audio recorder, anonymised, and Goodman-Delahunty (2010): 372. speech content is not properly understood. later transcribed. Summary maps of the material 28 This secion draws upon the analysis of interview data contained in Rowden (2011) and Wallace (2011).

4. gateways to justice project overview 31 been a posiive step forward in: • Concerns expressed about efect on • Concerns raised about efect of remote - expediing court processes; percepions: Some interviewees thought that appearance on behaviour of remote parici- - minimising delays and travel imes; evidence given in the courtroom made a greater pants: Many interviewees recounted incidents - improving the delivery of jusice; and, impression on a jury than evidence given via vide- of remote paricipants being disinhibited in their - supporing vulnerable witnesses. olink, paricularly where it was evidence that was behaviour, and oten ‘forgeing’ that they were Interviewees were more likely to support its use signiicant or important. However, this was not in court. This was evidenced by behaviour that for uncontroversial evidence or administraive a universal view and there were suggesions that was incongruent with the serious court seing, type procedures where consideraions of cost the standard of the technology (for example, the for example, some defendants and lay witnesses and eiciency are most compelling. More diverse size and clarity of screen and audio) would be im- quoted as having said “see you later” to the ju- opinions were expressed in relaion to its use for portant consideraions in relaion to the impact dicial oicer at the conclusion of the link. There appearances that were seen as more signiicant, of videolinked evidence. were concerns that incongruent behaviour could for example important or contested evidence or • Concerns expressed about the ability to impact adversely on the percepion of the re- for sentencing defendants. assess credibility and the capacity to confront: mote paricipant by those in the courtroom. This • Adequacy of the environmental and tech- Some interviewees thought that witnesses who incongruent behaviour may, in part, be due to the nological condiions quesioned: Many inter- gave evidence on videolink were perceived as fact that remote environments are in scale, decor, viewees expressed concerns about the adequacy less credible, although others sharply disputed materiality and inishes oten very diferent from of the videolink technology they were required this view. Judicial oicers who were dubious that of a regular courtroom. The social and envi- to work with, and the quality of the environ- about the value of in-court assessments of de- ronmental cues29 as to appropriate behaviour are ments that supported the technology. Concerns meanour as a guide to truthfulness generally saw more diicult to read or sustain.30 about the availability and limitaions of tools no adverse impact on credibility where a witness • Sentencing by videolink raised concerns: to adequately display documents, exhibits and gave evidence remotely. There were markedly di- Although there is no doubt that it is occurring on audio-visual material over videolink were raised vergent views as to the ability to efecively chal- a reasonably regular basis, almost all interview- frequently. Other concerns included restricted lenge a witness’s credibility on videolink, and the ees that raised the topic of defendants being sen- views (expert witnesses paricularly complained extent to which the ability to ‘confront’ a witness tenced remotely by videolink expressed concerns about not being provided with views of jurors), as was both a requirement, and a possibility, when well as poor quality sound and vision. evidence was given on videolink. 29 Rapoport (1982). 30 Rowden (2011).

32 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings about the pracice. Those who held reservaions Subjects One of the industry partners, the Victorian De- felt that the signiicance of a sentencing hearing Research subjects who served as mock jurors partment of Jusice, made available a modern required the defendant to be physically present. were 170 jury-eligible Australian ciizens living courtroom, a regular remote witness room, and Other concerns raised by judicial oicers included in Melbourne, recruited either from local news- a generous meeing room that was transformed a diminished capacity to engage with the com- paper adverisements (N=113) or from the jury into an ‘enhanced’ remote witness room. These munity and the defendant in the process when pool in the Victorian County Court who atended building modiicaions were made possible with sentencing was conducted remotely. Some law- court for jury service but who were not selected the support of the Liberty Group (the owners of yers expressed concerns about the impact of ap- to serve (N=57). the building). pearing remotely on the defendant’s behaviour, as well as the potenial distance created beween Lay witnesses were recruited from local news- A pilot test was carried out at the University of the defendant and their adjudicator.31 paper adverisements (N=64). Expert witnesses Canberra with some 30 management students. (N=21) were provided by the Australian Federal This study tested diferent aspects of the orienta- f) THE GATEWAYS EXPERIMENT Police, the Victorian Police Forensic Department ion and introducion of witnesses, as well as de- The inal stage of the research consisted of a and the Victorian Insitute of Forensic Medicine. veloping the items used in surveys of witnesses controlled experiment designed to test the rela- Potenial jurors and witnesses indicated their in- and observers. A second pilot, carried out over ionship between some of the variables that had terest in paricipaing via a website, where they three days in June 2009 at the County Court Vic- been ideniied — from site inspecions, court ob- were selected to achieve an approximately equal toria, resulted in alteraions to the design stand- servaions and interview data — as impacing on representaion of men and women, and younger ards and processes used in the inal experiment. the success of video-mediated encounters. The and older persons for each jury group. By con- experiment focused speciically on one paricular trast, court witnesses for each session were se- Condiions type of encounter: between a witness (expert or lected to be as similar as possible, to minimize Four condiions were tested, including one con- non-expert) and the courtroom paricipants who variaion. trol condiion (see Figure 7, p34). The control receive their evidence (lawyers, judicial oicers condiion involved a ‘standard’ environment and and jurors). Locaion ‘standard’ process (BB) and the three experimen- The experiment took place in August 2009 in the tal condiions were: enhanced environment and 31 For further details, see Rowden, Wallace & Victorian County Court in downtown Melbourne. enhanced process (AA), standard environment Goodman-Delahunty (2010).

4. gateways to justice project overview 33 and enhanced process (BA), and enhanced envi- Witnesses were shown a short extract from a ilm ronment and standard process (AB). by Wim Wenders, The American Friend (1977), which showed a hitman tailing his target across The condiions were tested in 21 sessions. A ses- several Paris railway staions, before shooing sion was designed to have each of the four con- him as he was ascending an escalator. This ilm diions, with each session presening the condi- was chosen because there was no dialogue, it ions in a diferent order. The condiion order had a fairly simple story line and was directly rel- was systemaically varied to ensure that each evant to a criminal trial. Witnesses were shown condiion appeared irst and last at least 4 imes. the ilm segment, and then escorted to the re- In pracice, two of the sessions involving expert mote witness room. witnesses had an extra witness. Each witness tes- iied only once. Witnesses at each session were Each witness was assigned a diferent experimen- Figure 7: The four diferent condiions tested in the randomly assigned to one of the four condiions. tal condiion. Jurors observed the four witnesses experiment. Jurors were assigned to one of the 21 sessions, giving their tesimony. Jurors did not know which based both on an atempt to get a demographic of the four condiions each witness had been as- balance between jurors on each panel and their signed, nor did they see the ilm extract. Given availability. that the four witnesses all saw an idenical event, it is likely that there was a learning efect for ju- Procedures rors across the condiions. Paricipants who registered via the website completed a quesionnaire about a month before the Witnesses completed one survey before leaving study period. Those who volunteered on the day the witness room and coming into the courtroom from the jury pool completed this quesionnaire for a debrieing with the jurors and the court par- before paricipaing in the rest of the process. icipants. Jurors completed four surveys, one for each witness.

34 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings Measuring efects Both pre- and post-quesionnaires administered throughout the experiment included scales developed by the research team. Several scales were produced from items using principal components analysis. Where there were only two or three items on a scale, a modiied version of this technique was used, in which ordinal rather than interval-level measurement was assumed. Some- what diferent scales were produced for witnesses and jurors, relecing both the diferent roles they played in the process, as well as the need to keep the jury quesionnaire as short as possible to avoid survey faigue. Witnesses paricipated in just one interview; jurors saw four (or, in a few cases, more) witnesses.

A disincion was made between the irst witness that jurors saw, and subsequent witnesses; this diference relects in part a ‘learning’ efect, once the juror had completed one form, they had a beter idea of what the researchers were looking Figure 8: Let: view of “enhanced” remote room; Above: for, but it also provides a diference between ini- view of backdrop to “enhanced” remote room (© Emma ial impressions and more considered views. Rowden).

4. gateways to jusice project overview 35 Figure 9 (clockwise from let): Standard remote witness room: view of remote witness as they appear on the courtroom display; views of the two cathode-ray (CRT) screens on the movable trolley; view of remote witness in standard room with stacked chairs behind, movable trolley in the foreground, and blocked window in the background (© Emma Rowden).

36 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings Figure 10 (clockwise from let): Enhanced remote witness room: view of remote witness as they appear on the courtroom display; view of courtroom for remote paricipant on single large screen, other features of the enhanced room include views outside, comfortable chair, large windows with natural light, lowering plant, visual interest in texiles and colour scheme; view of background to witness with blue acousic panel; self-view on widescreen allows the witness to check their appearance on the courtroom screen (© Emma Rowden).

4. gateways to jusice project overview 37 PLAN OF ‘STANDARD’ REMOTE WITNESS ROOM 6. SCALE 1:50 3. 5.

1. moveable trolley with CCTV equipment enclosed 2. 2. plasic chair for witness 1. 3. plasic chair for support person 4. 4. stack of plasic chairs

5. ceiling-mounted Judge’s overview camera

6. exising window - natural light blocked by opaque screen

Figure 11: Standard remote witness room: 3-D view of design for standard room; plan of standard room (3D model © ICE Design; plan © Emma Rowden).

38 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings PLAN OF ‘ENHANCED’ REMOTE WITNESS SCALE 1:50 ROOM 1. acousic panels 1200mm x 2400mm 6b. supplementary videoconferencing light 2. moveable background panel iings (ceiling-mounted) 3. rug 7. decoraive blinds to help control for glare 4. table with 50 inch plasma screen, camera 8. comfortable tub chairs and co-located speaker 9. views to cityscape beyond 5. lowering plant 10. ceiling-mounted microphone 6a. exising ceiling-mounted light iings

Figure 12: Enhanced remote witness room: 3-D view of design for enhanced room; plan of ‘enhanced room (3D model © ICE Design; plan © Emma Rowden).

4. gateways to jusice project overview 39 Figure 13: The courtroom within the County Court of Victoria, Melbourne, where the Gateways experiment was conducted (© Emma Rowden).

40 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings The survey measured witnesses’ responses to: Results These environmental and process impacts test • the quality of the orientaion; Witnesses who experienced the enhanced en- the quality of the experimental intervenion. • whether they were made to feel welcome vironmental condiions had signiicantly higher They measure whether the changes were large • how well the interacion with the pros- scores for the perceived quality of the technol- enough for paricipants and observers to noice, ecutor went (whether the witness developed a ogy and the witness room than those who were as well as whether they regarded these diferenc- rapport with the prosectutor, made eye-contact assigned to the standard condiion. Jurors had a es as posiive. For both intervenions, the efects with them and sensed the impression they had similar percepion when they compared two wit- were noiced and appreciated by both witnesses made on the prosectutor); nesses experiencing enhanced condiions with and jurors. • how well the conversaion went (whether two witnesses who were assigned to the stand- the conversaion lowed smoothly, whether the ard condiion. The changes to the physical and A further measure of the success of the experi- witness could follow the quesions and whether technological environment were recognized both ment is whether there was an impact on the qual- he/she was nervous); and, by those who experienced them directly, and by ity of the court procedure; in this case, an inter- • whether the witness was stressed, con- those observing. view between prosecutor and witness. Given the fused or anxious. short length of the interview, and the ariiciality Witnesses who were assigned to the enhanced of the situaion – the witness did not actually wit- Jurors also provided responses to the above is- process condiion reported a strong posiive im- ness an assassinaion on a Paris subway – it might sues, except for those regarding orientaion. pact of the orientaion, as well as the welcome be expected that such an efect would be harder they received. Jurors did not see the orientaions to ind. Nevertheless, an improved process did The experiment tested three efects: so were not asked about this, but they did noice enhance the quality of the interacion between 1) the impact of the enhanced environment a diference in the quality of the in-court recep- prosecutor and witness, from the perspecive of compared to the standard environment; ion of the witness. As with improvements to the the witness. Jurors also reported a diference in 2) the impact of the enhanced process com- environmental condiions, process changes made the quality of the interacion, but only for the pared to the standard process; and, a detectable and posiive impression on both wit- second or subsequent observaion. This delayed 3) the impact of having both environment nesses and jurors. response of jurors suggests that observers might and process changed relaive to the standard detect changes in the physical environment rela- condiion for each. ively quickly (in this case, in observing the irst

4. gateways to jusice project overview 41 witness), but more subtle efects, like quality of witness. (The delayed response is consistent improving the quality of orientaion of the wit- interacion, might take longer to noice. with that of the witnesses). What is most re- ness and procedure for introducing the witness markable, however, is that improvement in the in court. Improving them together is both a pru- For the other two measures, the perceived suc- efeciveness of the interview and reducions dent and efecive way of improving the quality of cess of the interview, and the level of anxiety or in perceived stress were ideniied not just for the jusice process. stress, there were no signiicant diferences be- those who undertook the enhanced process con- tween witnesses who were assigned the stand- diion. The witnesses who were assigned to the KEY FINDINGS FROM THE EXPERIMENT: ard and enhanced condiions. This is from the enhanced environmental condiion also were • Improving process has a posiive efect, perspecive of the witnesses themselves, who did perceived to be more efecive in their interview and improving the environment has a posiive not have anything to compare their experience and less stressed than their counterparts in the efect; however, improving both has a com- with. A real witness might be quesioned for con- standard condiion, even if the process remained pounding efect: Improving processes and the siderably longer than the seven minutes, on aver- unchanged. This suggests that, even if the wit- environment and the technology together has age, that the witnesses in this study experienced. ness might not consciously noice it, improving a greater efect than improving either environ- At the subsequent debrieing session, witnesses the quality of the remote witness room and the ment, technology or processes separately (see who were assigned to the standard process and technology does make for a more successful jus- Figure 14a and 14b). environmental condiion did express higher lev- ice process, from the viewpoint of the group of • The quality of the environment of the els of anxiety and dissaisfacion relaive to the people who are entrusted with decision-making remote space is noiced by those in the court- others, so perhaps the witnesses were not con- authority, the jury. Improving the process as well room: In the experiment, it was found that im- scious of how they were feeling at the ime, and makes a further diference. proving the design of the remote witness room could name and describe their experiences only meant that the overall environment was seen as later. The main conclusions from these results is that more friendly both by witnesses and jurors. jusice agencies that are considering upgrading • Improving the quality of the videolink However, from the perspecive of jurors, there their faciliies should do so as part of a holisiic technology is noiceable by those in the remote were signiicant diferences for both perceived approach. Improving the design of the remote space and the courtroom: In the experiment it success of the interview, and the level of anxiety room and the technology does have a signiicant was found that improving the quality of the tech- or stress, at least for the second or subsequent impact on the quality of the process. So, does nology made the experience of both sound and

42 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings Figure 14a: Results of Juror Percepions - let graph shows juror percepions of tech- Figure 14b: Results of Witness Percepions - let graph shows witness percepions nology and environment as compared to their percepion of the baseline standard of technology and environment as compared to the percepion of witnesses who environment / standard process condiion (BB); right graph shows juror percepions experienced the baseline standard environment / standard process condiion (BB); of witness performances, as compared to their assessment of witnesses who experi- right graph shows witness self-assessment of performance as compared to those enced the baseline standard environment / standard process condiions (BB). witnesses who experienced the baseline standard environment / standard process condiions (BB).

4. gateways to jusice project overview 43 vision beter for both witnesses and jurors (see Figure 14a and 14b). • Improved technology and environment in the remote space indicates an improved interacion with those in the courtroom: Witnesses reported a beter interacion with the prosecutor in the enhanced environment than in the standard environment (see Figure 14b).

Figure 15: Image of what the Judge’s overview display shows of the standard remote room (© Emma Rowden).

44 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings 5. synthesis of key indings: design and operaional guidelines to improve the remote encounter

Introducion These stages are: The study had two major indings. Firstly, the way in which videolink technology is implemented 1. Prior: What happens before the day of the has a real impact on service delivery, and there- court appearance; fore jusice outcomes; how videolinks are used, 2. Thresholds: A threshold is the transiion be- their design and operaion, maters. The sec- tween one state, or place, with another. This stage ond major inding of the study is that a success- refers to what occurs at the remote space on the ful videolinked court encounter requires careful day of the court encounter. Thresholds may be consideraion of the technology, environments, crossed muliple imes and at several points dur- personnel, protocols and legislaion that enable ing a remote appearance. They may take the form their use. These factors work together and none of a physical threshold (moving in and out of the of them should be ignored or viewed in isolaion. remote room), as well as a technological thresh- The following guide provides a synthesis of the old (connecing and disconnecing the videolink recommendaions of the study for court manag- to the court). ers, technicians, architects, designers and others 3. The Encounter: What occurs over the course of who wish to operaionalise the indings. the videolink; and, 4. Aterwards: What occurs ater its conclusion The Remote Court Encounter (both short-term and longer-term acions). The structure of these recommendaions have have been conigured around the four stages of Our suggested operaional and design guidelines what we term “the remote court encounter” (see idenify and address key issues that arise at each Figure 16). stage of the remote court encounter, and recommendaions ideniied are either to do with suggested changes to the process (addressing court Figure 16: Diagram showing stages of the remote protocols, procedures and administraive mat- encounter (© Emma Rowden). ters), or the design (addressing the technological and environmental condiions) of the videolink.

5. synthesis of key indings: design and operaional guidelines for improving the remote encounter 45 Another factor afecing the videolink process is Remote for access, 1. Assisted appearances: Some remote par- the role of the paricipant appearing remotely. Remote for separaion 32 icipants are accompanied by another person. We ideniied nine main categories of potenial More broadly, the reasons for paricipaing re- This might be a trained support oicer or volun- remote paricipants: motely may be deined as: teer (e.g. in the case of a child witness or other 1. Remote for providing access vulnerable witnesses), or in the case of a de- 1. Lay witness (deined as non-vulnerable, - for giving evidence (e.g. remote witness - lay, fendant, a prison oicer. That other person may non-expert) expert) operate the technology and provide addiional 2. Vulnerable witness (either a child - for appearing (e.g. remote defendant) informaion about the court process to the par- and protected witnesses) - for atending (e.g. family or supporter in a icipant. 3. Expert witness remote locaion) 4. Defendant - for presiding (remote judge) 2. Unassisted appearances: Some remote 5. Judicial oicer (judge or magistrate) - for advocaing (remote lawyer) paricipants are alone in the remote space (e.g. 6. Lawyer expert witnesses, and some vulnerable and lay 7. Members of the public (including 2. Remote for providing separaion witnesses). In these instances, the remote par- supporters of the vicim, defendant or an - for giving evidence (e.g. child or icipants have the responsibility for acceping the other party, as well as interested vulnerable witness, protected witnesses) videolink call, and may be required to set up the members of the public). - for atending (e.g. paries in conlict, room beforehand. They will need to be more self- 8. Media (press gallery) a disrupive defendant). suicient and more involved in seing up the vid- 9. Interpreters. eolink. They may also need assistance from the court to ensure their comfort (access to water In the operaional and design guidelines we iden- Addiional persons in the remote space and other ameniies). The level of addiional sup- ify which recommendaions have more speciic A remote space, in this context, is a place from port may vary depending on the person’s role and relevance to some paricular types of parici- which a paricipant is videolinked to a courtroom. prior experience in giving evidence by videolink. pants. We ideniied two diferent types of remote appearances: The court should also consider the nature of the evidence to be given (traumaic personal evi- 32 Rowden (2011): 67.

46 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings dence versus non-controversial and non-personal evidence) when considering addiional support. Those more vulnerable, unassisted, remote witnesses may require addiional checking to ensure that they understand instrucions and/or what is occurring.

Types of remote spaces Remote spaces can be classiied according to whether or not they are used for other purposes, or, whether they are used solely for videolinks. They are either:

1. Dedicated remote faciliies: (see Figure 17a). These are generally purpose-built remote rooms and associated spaces that are only used for videolinks and are not used for any other purpose. Examples of this type include the remote witness facility within or atached to a courthouse, or a videoconferencing room in a prison, or,

2. Mulipurpose remote spaces: (see Figure 17b). These spaces are only occasionally linked Figure 17a: A dedicated remote facility (© Emma Figure 17b: A remote paricipant appearing from a to the courtroom. For instance, our study found Rowden). mulipurpose remote space with stacked chairs in the that a remote court paricipant might ind them- background (© Emma Rowden).

5. synthesis of key indings: design and operaional guidelines for improving the remote encounter 47 selves in seings as varied as a hospital chapel or tea room, a business centre videoconference room, a university oice, a mulifuncion meeing room, or a room that doubles as a storeroom. 33

Two rooms in one: what the court sees and what the remote paricipant sees Any remote space can be seen as divided in two: Remote Room a = what the remote paricipant sees of the space (when seated); and, Remote Room b = what the court sees of the remote paricipant and the remote space (Figure 18).34

As a general rule, remote room b should always frame the remote paricipant in a way that gives the impression to those watching from the courtroom that the remote paricipant is being treated with dignity and respect, and that there is nothing distracing, or diminishing the appearance of, the remote paricipant.

33 Rowden (2011): Appendix H. 34 Rowden (2011): 332 & Appendix H. Figure 18: The remote space as being “two rooms in one” (© Emma Rowden; Rowden 2011: Appendix H).

48 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings Types of videolink technologies 35 site sides of the world. As such, CCTV is gradually During the early days of courtroom videolinks, being phased out. courthouses that accommodated vulnerable witness faciliies uilised CCTV technology to make The immediate future of video conferencing the link between the witness room and the court. technology shares the same focus as the aims The CCTV infrastructure was proven technology and aspiraions of the design guides included in based around point to point hardwired cabling the appendices of this document, namely, the systems that routed the video and audio signals enhanced sense of naturalness and authenicity from one room to another via central switching when communicaing with a remote paricipant. hardware. While this basic plaform provided an adequate video soluion, audio was commonly Current buzzwords and tradenames include im- more problemaic as it generally lacked the ben- mersive, virtual reality and telepresence environ- eits of echo cancellaion and other important au- ments. In pracice each is striving to capture the dio signal processors. aural and visual nuances of communicaion in more detail through the use of higher deiniion With the maturity and price reducion of audio- video, more sophisicated audio and increased visual technologies and the increased availabil- control over equipment placement and the room ity of bandwidth across building networks and environment. the internet, video conferencing codecs (used to encode and decode audio and video signals for Another rapidly emerging area of development transport as data over a network) present a far is the integraion of BYOD (bring your own de- more lexible and reliable soluion that can link vice) integraion where personal devices such as rooms located in the same building or on oppo- smartphones and tablets can be used to access convenional video conferencing networks. To what extent the introducion of this convenient 35 We are paricularly indebted to Rod Louey-Gung and potenially informal communicaion capabil- Figure 19: Early videolink equipment from Darwin c. 1989 (Photography: Michael Strong). from ICE Design for his contribuion to this secion.

5. synthesis of key indings: design and operaional guidelines for improving the remote encounter 49 ity is relevant or appropriate to court proceedings remains to be seen.

While some technology vendors and commentators are advocates for virtual reality and total immersion, there is a strong argument to be made that total immersion is not appropriate for all types of remote court paricipants. For instance, vulnerable and/or child witnesses may not necessarily ind such immersive experiences conducive to giving evidence, as immersion may work against some of the exising beneits provided by the remote facility.36 Regardless, this should not prevent courts trying to improve the environmental and technological condiions of remote faciliies in terms of comfort and their potenial role in creaing a sense of decorum and dignity for the remote paricipant.

Figure 20: View of the courtroom via a CCTV link— note only the top half of the torso of the Judge and the lawyer speaking at the bar table are visible. While such views allow for beter visual registraion of the faces of the main speakers, this set-up denies the remote paricipant an overall sense of the courtroom space. This may be ideal for vulnerable and child witnesses, but not for other types of remote paricipants (© Emma Rowden).

36 see: Rowden (forthcoming).

50 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings Figure 21: View of Courtroom via videoconferenced link — note that there is a clear sense of the overall courtroom space, without the public gallery area or the defendant being visible for the remote paricipant. However, each face is very diicult to read. With the appropriate technology, the camera can be zoomed in for a beter view of the speaker. Note Figure 22: DVE’s “telepresence” system, using mirrored also the diference in screen quality between the display in this image as compared to those in Figure 20. The picture-in- glass to simulate making eye-contact over the vide- picture is a self-view, but could be changed to show a close-up of the judge instead (© Emma Rowden). oconferenced link (©PTW Architects).

5. synthesis of key indings: design and operaional guidelines for improving the remote encounter 51 5.1 prior

This stage involves both providing the infrastruc- document camera, the size and amenity of the ture and procedures for enabling videolinks to waiing room, links to witness support services, occur, as well as preparing for an individual vid- safety features (for example, the availability of a eolinked case. The irst process is administraive secure and separate entrance for vulnerable wit- and formal systemic preparaion, involving pro- nesses). A record might be maintained for both fessionals, court administrators and staf. The court-operated faciliies, such as those within second part is focused on idenifying the needs associated jusice agencies (correcions, police, and acions of each individual remote paricipant forensic services), as well as local faciliies that in a paricular case, and how court staf, adminis- have been used successfully for links into court trators and architects can pre-empively respond (lawyer’s oices, libraries, hospitals, universiies, to these needs. Accordingly, this secion will be business centres etc). Such a register will assist divided into a) general systemic preparaion (In- court staf, lawyers and prosecutors who need to frastructure and procedures for videolinks), and idenify appropriate remote spaces for a paricu- b) preparaions for an individual videolinked case lar case. (Preparing for each videolinked encounter). • Streamline the process for court permissions: 5.1.1 Infrastructure and procedures for Informaion concerning the availability of vid- videolinks eolinks, the process for their approval and the IMPROVING THE PROCESS condiions atached to their use should be readily • Maintain a central registry of faciliies avail- accessible to all court users. This might be done able for videolinks: Clearer and more centrally- in the form of informaion on the court website, kept records of what faciliies are available, that and be included in brieing pamphlets and e- document the quality and capacity of the audio- Briefs provided to witnesses. An automated sys- visual equipment, as well as other features of tem might be developed, whereby a party could the room, would be useful. These records should indicate that they propose to apply for a link and note relevant items such as the availability of a where the opposing party could indicate wheth-

52 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings er or not they opposed that and, if so, on what ing sites suitable for occasional links to courts • Fine-tune the design of the remote faciliies grounds. If the link is not opposed, then a book- (see Appendices B and C). Appendix B outlines during the commissioning stage: A ine-tuning ing might be iniiated (see below). If the link is important informaion that should be taken into session should occur at the commissioning stage opposed, then the mater should be referred to a account by those procuring, designing and con- of the building procurement process. This would judicial oicer to consider at a pre-trial or direc- strucing remote spaces in courthouses, prisons trial and reine the opimum technological and ions hearing. and other faciliies that are oten linked to the operaional design condiions more generally for courts (such as the videoconferencing suite of a each paricular facility. This session would also • Standardise procedures for booking the link forensic laboratory). Appendix C outlines impor- inform the advice to be given to remote parici- and rescheduling the link: There is a need for tant informaion that should be taken into ac- pants appearing from this paricular locaion. For a standardised, streamlined system that is man- count when selecing suitable sites that will only example, the exact locaion of specialist vide- aged centrally in each jurisdicion through a occasionally be used to link into court. We recom- oconferencing lighing, reinforcement speakers web-based form (these could be co-ordinated mend that courts adopt the prescribed ‘minimum and other parts of the videolink equipment will naionally to be compaible across jurisdicions). standards’ in Appendices B and C, based on the need adjustment and can only be performed once Request for a link should include details of ime, empirical evidence of this study, to improve the installed. Likewise, the opimum placement of equipment required and level of support (e.g. ex- design of remote court spaces, and selecion of acousic panelling or other furniture, may require pert, vulnerable, whether documents or exhibits other ‘mulifuncion spaces’. ine-tuning during this stage. Paricularly with will need to be displayed over the link as well as movable items, the opimum condiions should the image of a person). Guidance for court staf is • Design technology at the same ime as the be documented, so that the remote partcipant, necessary to advise how best to manage compet- built environment: For the opimum operaion of or preferably their support person, can ensure ing prioriies. Interview data suggests that prior- audio-visual technologies, the surrounding built that the environmental and technical condiions ity someimes seems to be aligned to court hier- environment oten needs to be designed in spe- of the space are conigured correctly prior to the achy rather than to needs. ciic ways (acousic treatment of walls, placement commencement of each link. of microphones and screens, posiion of screens IMPROVING THE DESIGN in relaion to natural light etc). This is easiest to • Adopt minimum standards for opimum de- do in tandem with the design of the space, rather sign of remote witness facilies and for select- than iing it into an already ixed design.

5.1 prior 53 5.1.2 Preparing for each videolinked own guidelines based on trial and error to deine - whom they will be able to see and hear. encounter what creates the most legible seings within that (Note: child witnesses and witnesses with intel- IMPROVING THE PROCESS space (see commissioning stage outlined above). lectual disabiliies will need this informaion tai- • Provide adequate and appropriate brieing to ii) regarding the cut of the clothing, a paricipant lored to be age-appropriate in its complexity and prepare the remote paricipant: A person paric- might be advised against wearing such items as a level of detail). ipaing remotely in a court proceeding should be low-cut top, a short skirt or other potenially re- provided with suicient and imely informaion vealing clothing, so as to prevent the paricipant The nature and type of this preparatory brieing prior to the court proceeding to enable them to displaying more of their body to the courtroom, will vary, depending on the paricipant them- adequately prepare for their court appearance. than they realise or desire, because of the nature selves, the nature of the role, and their familiarity This should include informaion about: of the camera angles used in the videolink. with the court process. However, it should not be assumed that a paricipant who is more familiar a. what to bring with them: For example, any c. what to expect: Paricipants should be briefed with the court process will necessarily be equally documents or exhibits, and the form in which this on what to expect: prepared for videolinked paricipaion. For exam- material should be provided in order to be trans- i) when they arrive at the remote paricipaion fa- ple, an expert witness may have given evidence mited across the videolink; cility. For example, they should be told: before but never used a document camera over - where they should go, a videolink and may require technical support to b. what to wear: Paricipants should be briefed - whether anyone will be there to meet operate the equipment. Brieing material should on recommended clothing choices: them, or help them prepare, be available in two forms: a pamphlet and a i) regarding colour, wearing white should be - how much ime they will have to wait, standard ‘e-brief,’ that could be either sent to the avoided. Any extreme colour contrasts in the col- - where the bathroom is, paricipant in hard copy, or messaged/emailed our spectrum might make facial features diicult - where they can get a glass of water or to their mobile phone (or an ‘App’ that provides to read when picked up by the camera. Such con- leave their personal efects, etc.; and, a step-by-step guide to their court appearance). diions may depend on the colour scheme of the ii) when they are linked by videoconference to This should include things like explaining how room, the direcion of the light onto the person’s the courtroom. For example, they should be told: remote paricipants can check their own appear- face in relaion to the camera, and the colour of - who the other paricipants are, ance on the link in order to ind out how they will their skin. Each facility may need to develop their - who will be able to see and hear them, appear onscreen to those in the courtroom.

54 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings • Allow ime and resources for tesing and modi- ions that provide a variety of tailored soluions ate a call to the remote paricipant prior to the fying the link with the remote paricipant prior for diferent types of remote paricipants may court appearance and run through a checklist of to their scheduled appearance: There should be address this issue. However, the ulimate respon- pracical and technical aspects (e.g. ensure that an opportunity for the link to be tested prior to sibility lies with the judicial oicer to be saisied the background image to the remote paricipant the connecion for the court appearance, to en- that appropriate modiicaions have been made, is not distracing; ensure the paricipant has ac- sure that: which may require a short adjournment or addi- cess to a self-view; ensure they have a glass of - the technology is working; ional technical support to recify. water, etc.). - the required sound and vision is being delivered to an acceptable standard; • Provide the remote paricipant with support • Provide the remote paricipant with an ori- - all paricipants have relevant views of on the day of their appearance: An appropriate entaion of the court: In the same way that a other paricipants that they require; and, level of support should be available to the remote paricipant entering a physical courtroom has - documents or exhibits are able to be paricipant so that they are able to perform their the opportunity to enter that space, observe the adequately displayed over the videolink. designated role with minimal addiional disrup- other paricipants and orient themselves, there Adjustments to the videolink to suit the unique ion to the court proceedings resuling from the should be an opportunity for the remote parici- requirements of each case should be encouraged use of videolink. For example, where a facility is pant to receive an introducion and orientaion to at this stage of tesing the link (e.g. adjustment used for a remote expert witness, there should the courtroom. Typically, this might occur at the of camera angle to accommodate a tall witness), be an appropriate level of technology support commencement of the videolink, or immediately and during the link itself if necessary (e.g. adjust- provided to assist with displaying documents and prior, but it could also take place in the physical ment of volume levels). For higher volume courts, exhibits using a document camera, or iPad (that courtroom at another ime, if that is more suita- such adjustments may only be possible during support might be provided remotely e.g. by tel- ble or convenient. The orientaion should provide court by the court staf operaing the equipment. ephone link). For a vulnerable witness, a suitably the remote paricipant with informaion about Adequate ongoing training to educate and em- trained witness support oicer will be essenial. the other courtroom paricipants and their loca- power those operaing the equipment to make An unassisted remote paricipant may require ion, whom they can see and who can see them. such adjustments is important. Such recommen- addiional support from the court during the At the beginning of every court appearance, the daions need to be balanced with recogniion of link. This might be achieved by way of a centrally court should be saisied that all remote parici- the workloads of these staf. Pre-set conigura- manned “helpdesk” support line that could inii- pants:

5.1 prior 55 - have all the materials they require for c. Ensure there are no intrusions or disrupions: This may include advice to arrive early enough to their appearance; When linked to the courtroom, there should be a ensure that the background space behind them - have fresh drinking water available; sign on the door to the space prevening others when seated is clear of cluter and extraneous - know what to do if there is a technical from coming in and disruping proceedings. This material. To ensure that there is nothing distract- breakdown / failure; may be similar to the “on air” illuminated sign in ing in the background of the image that is sent to - know what to do if they are unwell. a broadcasing studio, or be simply a sign indicat- the courtroom, they should check their appearing: “please be quiet, this space is in use, please nace with the “self-view” funcion prior to linking • Day-to-day maintenance for dedicated remote do not disturb”. to court. faciliies: a. This room is “part of the courtroom” when the • Day-to-day maintenance for mulipurpose re- b. Ensure there are no intrusions or disrupions: link is acive: All staf (cleaners, managers, ad- mote spaces: When used as a remote space, there should be a ministrators) should treat the space in the same a. Provide an appropriate background to the re- sign on the door to the space, prevening others way as they treat a courtroom space, paricularly mote paricipant: from coming in and disruping proceedings. This in terms of how it is let when not in use. A sign i) for spaces that are regularly linked to may be simply a sign indicaing: “please be quiet, on the outside of the door to the space reminding courtrooms. Where these spaces are regularly this space is in use, please do not disturb.” staf and remote paricipants of this fact may be used to link to court, but are also used for oth- helpful, including the same diagrammed warn- er purposes, courts should provide a universally • Allow for pre-and post-court videolinks as re- ings that appear outside many courtrooms. standard movable backdrop that has acousic quired: If a defendant is appearing remotely, it panelling and is congruent to a court seing. The may be important for defence counsel to be pro- b. Clear the room of cluter: The remote room background should be light and easily removed vided with the facility to be able to videoconfer- should not be used as a storage space, or contain and stored away by one person for when the ence with their client immediately prior to (or the any extraneous objects that would be incongru- space is used for other purposes. morning of), and ater, their appearance in court. ous in a courtroom. Any such objects should be ii) for spaces that are only used sporadi- removed, or at least placed out of ield of view of cally to link to courtrooms: there should be clear IMPROVING THE DESIGN the court and the remote paricipant, but prefer- informaion provided to the remote paricipant • Tailor the coniguraion of the videolink for ably out of the remote room enirely. on how to prepare the room for the videolink. each individual case: The videolink should be tai-

56 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings lored with reference to the communicaion needs Similarly when two expert witnesses are giving legibility of their facial expressions; of the paricipants for the task being performed. concurrent evidence by videolink, or, one is giv- - whether a document or exhibit needs It should not be assumed that each type of court ing evidence by videolink and one is appearing in to be displayed in associaion with the interacion will necessarily be saisied by the the courtroom, careful thought needs to be given paricipant’s image (e.g. a forensic expert standard current set up. While court staf are cur- to the arrangement of technology and persons. explaining a crime scene photograph); rently responsible for operaing the equipment, Screen placement, camera angles, as well as the - does/should the remote paricipant be ulimately it is the judicial oicer in charge of the placement of other courtroom paricipants might able to see and hear: courtroom who is responsible for overseeing the be reconigured to ensure that each paricipant a. the judge/magistrate? (all paricipants) design and operaion of a videolink, in the same can see and hear each other. b. the jury? (especially expert witnesses) way that they are have oversight and control over c. the lawyers at the bar table? (all other aspects of the courtroom. Thought should • Plan for the possible need to reconigure the paricipants) be given to the views required, both of the par- technology, the courtroom and/or the remote d. the defendant? (not vulnerable and icipant and of those in the courtroom, in relaion space: Changes to the coniguraion of the tech- child witnesses) to the paricular paricipant or case. nology and the set up of the room might require e. the public gallery? (this might be planning and changes prior to the day of the re- paricularly signiicant for remote A common situaion where tailoring might be remote court appearance. As such, a checklist of is- defendants, for instance). quired is when an interpreter is used (either si- sues to consider beforehand might include: multaneous or consecuive). This requires careful - the height and size of the paricipant on • Establish pre-set camera coniguraions for dif- consideraion. Soluions may vary depending on screen: they should appear life-size in ferent types of remote paricipants: It is possible the needs of the person who requires interpret- courtroom and be proporionate (in that on most videoconferencing systems to set ‘preing. The interpreter must have good visual access the posiion of their head and torso on set’ coniguraions of camera angles, and views. to all paricipants, including the jury if present, the display is in proporion to the back These can be useful short-hand methods for and good access to the person for whom they are ground); achieving appropriate coniguraions to suit dif- interpreing. They should appear as an oicer of - their hand gestures should be visible; ferent types of paricipants, or diferent types of the court, rather than as a support person for the - their skin tone in relaion to the back proceedings, but should be checked periodically paricipant who requires interpreing. drop colour and the visibility and to ensure that they are sill correctly conigured

5.1 prior 57 and relevant to the needs of paricipants.

• Provide capacity to display documents and exhibits: Document cameras should be available, and already set-up and conigured for the remote paricipant. Similarly, relevant equipment and connecions to enable an expert witness to deliver an electronic (e.g. Powerpoint) presentaion should be available.

• Provide capacity to display a wide variety of courtroom views: The equipment needs to be capable of providing views of all courtroom paricipants (conigured as required) to the remote paricipant and audio that is co-located with those views. Displays and speakers should be appropriately posiioned to achieve this. Placement of camera and displays should be sensiive to eye direcion. For example, poor camera and display placement can result in a percepion that the remote paricipant looks “shity.”

Figure 23: Interpretaion for a witness over videolink —the top images show how the coniguraion • Provide capacity for self-views: The equipment might work with the interpreter visible onscreen, siing slightly behind the witness (top let); or with the interpreter slightly ofscreen or wholly ofscreen, but sill in the remote space with the witness (top also needs to be capable of providing a self-view. right); thirdly, the interpreter might be present in the courtroom while the remote paricipant can see This may be in the form of a picture-in-picture them at the end of the bar table shot, when being asked quesions by counsel (botom two images) view (PIP), or on a separate display monitor, in or- (© Emma Rowden).

58 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings der to enable the remote paricipant to see how in the remote space as seen in the courtroom they will appear to the courtroom. The remote paricipant, or their support person, should have the ability to turn of the self-view before, or after, the commencement of the videolink if they ind it distracing.

Figure 24: Non-verbal cues are more diicult to convey over videolink when the camera restricts the frame to the head and shoulders of the remote paricipant (© Emma Rowden).

Figure 25: Some videolinked connecions enable a “self- Figure 26: A self-view at a prisonlink view” for the remote paricipant to see how they are (© Emma Rowden). being depicted in court (© Emma Rowden).

5.1 prior 59 summary of key issues for ‘prior’

KEY ISSUES IMPROVING THE PROCESS IMPROVING THE DESIGN

1) INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROCE- • Maintain a central registry of faciliies • Adopt minimum standards for opimum DURES FOR VIDEOLINKS available for videolinks design of remote witness faciliies and of This refers to the administraive selecing sites suitable for occasional links and formal systemic preparaions • Streamline the process for Court permis- to courts (see Appendices B & C) required to enable videolinked en- sions counters in courts, and involves • Design technology at same ime as the work undertaken by design profes- • Standardise procedures for booking the built environment sionals, court staf, and court admin- link and rescheduling the link istrators. • Fine-tune the design of the remote faciliies during the commissioning stage and document opimum condiions in a central registry

• Tailor the coniguraion of the videolink 2) PREPARING FOR EACH VIDE- • Brief the remote paricipant about for each individual case OLINK a) what to bring with them; This part of the process is focused b) what to wear; and, • Plan for the possible need to reconigure on idenifying the needs and acions c) what to expect the technology, the courtroom and/or the of each individual remote parici- remote space pant in a paricular case, and how • Test and modify the link as necessary court staf, administrators and archi- with the remote paricipant prior to their • Establish pre-set camera coniguraions tects can pre-empively respond to scheduled appearance for diferent types of remote paricipants these needs.

60 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings KEY ISSUES IMPROVING THE PROCESS IMPROVING THE DESIGN

(2) PREPARING FOR EACH VIDEOLINK ... • Provide the remote paricipant with in- • Provide capacity: CONTINUED ...) formaion and support on the day of their - to display documents and exhibits appearance - to display a wide variety of courtroom views • Provide the remote paricipant with an - for self-views orientaion of the court

• Day-to-day maintenance for dedicated remote faciliies: a. This room is “part of the courtroom” when the link is acive b. Clear the room of cluter c. Ensure there are no intrusions or disrupions

• Day-to-day maintenance for mulipurpose remote spaces: a. Provide an appropriate background to the remote paricipant b. Ensure there are no intrusions or disrupions

• Allow for pre- and post-court videolinks as required

61 5.2 thresholds

There are muliple thresholds experienced in the IMPROVING THE PROCESS course of one court proceeding. While a thresh- • Provide informaion for remote paricipant as old can be deined as the physical transiion into to approximate duraion of waiing ime: Be- “the remote space,” we will mainly be considering physically disconnected from the court space ing here the threshold into the “live” videolink, can make the waiing period more uncertain and and into court. stressful. Regular contact with the court oicer via text message, or another form of communica- Thresholds may crossed muliple imes during a ion, can keep the remote paricipant connected videolink. The main thresholds are at beginning to the court’s schedule. This can be managed by and the end of a link – but there may be other the support person in the case of an assisted re- thresholds – for example, interrupions for legal mote appearance, or by the remote paricipant argument. themselves.

5.2.1 Waiing in safety • Provide appropriate reading material to type Court processes oten involve signiicant periods of remote paricipant in waiing area (age and of waiing for paricipants; this is especially so for gender appropriate): Courts should provide witnesses. For some witnesses (such as experts reading and/or other relaxaion materials in the appearing from their workplace) the use of vid- waiing areas of court-operated remote faciliies. eolinks will reduce waiing imes. However, for Remote paricipants waiing in ‘mulipurpose’ other types of witnesses, such as vulnerable or spaces should be encouraged in the brieing they child witnesses, there may sill be considerable receive to bring books or magazines, and other waiing imes for a remote appearance. Adequate relaxaion aciviies (games, kniing etc.) to ease support and faciliies should be provided to the the stress and anxiety that may accompany wait- remote paricipant if they are required to wait for ing for long periods of ime. Faciliies provided for Figure 27: Waiing spaces for child witnesses and their their court appearance. child witnesses should have appropriately-sized family at a Child Witness Facility (© Emma Rowden). and comfortable seaing, toys and a play area.

62 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings IMPROVING THE DESIGN ond line of communicaion between the remote IMPROVING THE PROCESS • Provide an entry sequence that ensures safety space for purposes such as a) noifying remote • Provide support when the unassisted remote and privacy: For vulnerable or protected wit- paricipant and support person when videolink is paricipant needs to accept the videolink call: nesses, access to the remote facility may need about to commence; b) emergency situaions e.g. Assisted remote paricipants will generally have to be both private and secure. When the remote if a remote witness is suddenly seriously ill; c) no- the link established for them, whereas an unas- facility is located within a court building, access ifying of a technical failure e.g. if there is a failure sisted paricipant will be expected to play a part should be in a zone that is out of sight from other of sound or vision, or a diminuion of the quality in this process by acceping the call from the public entrances. of the videolink, that is not immediately apparent court (when videoconferencing is used). They to the paries at the other end of the videolink. may require support and informaion in order to • Provide adequate faciliies in the waiing ar- achieve this, and may require instrucions as to eas (e.g. tea bench, toilets) to avoid re-entry into 5.2.2 Transiion from the outside world what to do if the link fails. public areas while waiing: All remote parici- to the court space pants should ideally have access to bathroom and For many remote paricipants the journey to • Welcome the remote paricipant to the court: kitchen ameniies (ideally separated from public their court appearance will be less formal than The judicial oicer should welcome the remote or shared areas for mulipurpose remote spaces), that which a paricipant atending in person at paricipant (for the irst ime, and again if there a comfortable waiing area with views, preferably the courthouse will experience. Paricipants need has been a break for legal argument or a rest), of the horizon, as well as access to outdoor (and to be aware of the serious nature of the proceed- and in the irst instance, introduce them to all smoking) areas. The nature and the type of wait- ings and the importance of their paricipaion. persons in the courtroom who have a role in the ing/support areas will depend upon the needs Informaion should be provided that explicitly re- proceedings. A standard and scripted introduc- of paricular types of remote paricipants. Vul- minds paricipants that when the videolink is on, ion can be a useful aid for judicial oicers in this nerable or personal evidence may require more the place where they are paricipaing from is un- regard, but care should be taken to ensure that separate and secluded support areas than less der the control of the court, that the rules of the the welcome does not become depersonalised contenious or rouine appearances. court apply. The onus is on the court to inform and formulaic. It is important also to farewell the them that they are expected to behave in a man- paricipant properly at the end so that they know • Provide a second line of communicaion be- ner that is appropriate for a courtroom. that their appearance is over. tween remote space and the court: Provide a sec-

5.2 thresholds 63 • Ensure sound and vision is adequate: The ju- crossed, needs careful consideraion, and poten- ment. Therefore remote paricipants may require dicial oicer should, during the welcome orien- ially, exaggeraion. It will be easier to achieve addiional assistance in order to maintain a de- taion, ensure that the remote paricipant can this in purpose-built dedicated remote faciliies meanour appropriate for a court appearance. adequately see the faces of those who are speak- that are in the court’s control. However, as tech- ing to them, and that they can adequately hear nology develops there may be other ways to sim- IMPROVING THE PROCESS everyone who is required to speak. ulate this threshold in an immersive experience • Make clear the disincion between being “in (see Appendix B, p116, for further informaion). court” and “out of court”. Clear and imely infor- • Ensure the comfort of the remote paricipant: maion should always be available to the remote The judicial oicer should make sure that the re- • Indicate that the remote space is ‘live’ to the paricipant about when they are, and are not, mote paricipant is aware of a protocol for alert- courtroom through signals and/or technology: ‘live’ to the court. Operaing staf should provide ing the court if anything needs adjusing for them, This may be achieved by way of a small coloured that informaion orally once the videolink is es- or if they need a break. At the beginning of every light or signal to indicate that the space is ‘live’ tablished, and, at the terminaion of the link. A court appearance, the judicial oicer should be to the courtroom. This signal should be as unob- reminder should be given to a paricipant during saisied that the remote paricipant is suicient- trusive as possible, and should be noted to the stages of the proceedings when they are visible ly oriented to the courtroom, including that they: paricipant so that they are aware of it, but able and/or audible, but not actually paricipaing in - have all the materials they require for to be turned of by the remote paricipant should the proceedings. Each paricipant should be able their appearance; they so desire. Such a signal should be carefully to know with certainty whether or not they are - have fresh drinking water available; crated. For instance, some vulnerable or child live to the courtroom, and to be given adequate - know what to do if there is a technical witnesses may ind that a “countdown” produces warning as to when the link has commenced and breakdown / failure; addiional, rather than less, stress. when they have ‘entered’ the courtroom. - know what to do it they are unwell (or, in some cases, if they need a break). 5.2.3 Being “in court” • Create a formal atmosphere to assist the re- It may become diicult for the remote paricipant mote paricipant to maintain an appropriate de- IMPROVING THE DESIGN to maintain a sense that they are ‘in court’ - par- meanour to the court seing: Individuals obtain • Ariculate the threshold architecturally: The icularly if the behavioural cues of the remote informaion about behaviour they should adopt symbolism of the threshold, and how that is locaion are at odds with the courtroom environ- for each seing they encounter through a com-

64 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings binaion of environmental and social cues. These the court maintains and has control over, than cues are potenially more diicult to pick up on mulifuncion spaces that are only occasionally over a videolinked interacion. Courts should linked to a court. be aware that for some remote paricipants it may be more diicult to maintain an appropri- • The view of the court should convey the pres- ate demeanour and aitude for a court appear- ence of the court to the paricipant: Courts ance when they are in a remote room that is less should not underesimate the important role of formal than the courtroom environment. Courts the built environment in conveying behavioural may need to assist the remote paricipant by be- cues to court paricipants. It may be more diicult ing more mindful of this disparity. For example, for some remote paricipants to be able to main- if a judicial oicer was concerned that a remote tain a sense of being in court when they appear paricipant was behaving inappropriately, but from a remote space that is incongruous with the seemed to be unaware of this, the judicial oic- court environment in its décor and inishes. This er could adjourn proceedings to allow guidance is paricularly important to bear in mind when to be given to the paricipant by their lawyer or the link is interrupted or paused, or, when the court staf. focus of proceedings is no longer on the remote paricipant. IMPROVING THE DESIGN • The remote space should convey a sense of • The remote facility should be comfortable, respect and dignity towards the remote par- spacious, clean and private: The provision of icipant that is evident to those watching from comfortable, clean and secure surroundings are the courtroom: Ideally the material inishes and important to create a sense of respect for the re- design of the remote space should convey to the mote paricipant, and also help foster the right remote paricipant a sense of respect to their behaviour and demeanour for a court appear- needs, and convey the dignity of the court. Obvi- ance. Figure 28: Two remote paricipant waiing environments ously this sense is easier to achieve in spaces that - above, a waiing area for vulnerable witnesses; below, a waiing cell for prisoners using prison videolinks (© Emma Rowden).

5.2 thresholds 65 summary of key issues for ‘thresholds’

KEY ISSUES IMPROVING THE PROCESS IMPROVING THE DESIGN

1) WAITING IN SAFETY: • Provide informaion for remote parici- • Provide an entry sequence that ensures Adequate support and faciliies should pant as to approximate duraion of wait- safety and privacy be provided to the remote paricipant if ing ime they are required to wait for their court • Provide adequate faciliies in waiing ar- appearance. • Provide appropriate reading material eas (e.g. tea bench, toilets) with a pleas- for the type of remote paricipant in the ant outlook, painings and natural light waiing area (age and gender appropriate) • Provide a second line of communicaion between remote space and the court

2) TRANSITION FROM THE OUTSIDE • Provide informaion and support when • Exaggerate the threshold through archi- WORLD TO THE COURT SPACE: the unassisted remote paricipant needs tectural features (such as lighing, change For many remote paricipants the journey to accept the videolink call in ceiling height, change in materials, to their court appearance will be less for- deep architraves, or colour) to help clarify mal than that which a paricipant atend- • Greet and welcome the remote parici- the disincion between the remote court ing in person at the courthouse will experi- pant to the court space and the waiing areas ence. Paricipants need to be aware of the serious nature of the proceedings and the • Check sound and vision is adequate by • Indicate that the remote space is ‘live’ importance of their paricipaion. asking if all paricipants can see and hear to the courtroom through signals and/or technology • Check the comfort of the remote paricipant

66 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings KEY ISSUES IMPROVING THE PROCESS IMPROVING THE DESIGN

3) BEING IN COURT: • Make clear the disincion between be- • The remote space should convey a sense It may become diicult for the remote ing “in court” and “out of court” of respect and dignity towards the re- paricipant to maintain a sense that they mote paricipant and be evident to those are ‘in court’ - paricularly if the behav- • Create a formal atmosphere to assist watching from the courtroom ioural cues of the remote locaion are at the remote paricipant to maintain a de- odds with the courtroom environment. meanour appropriate for the court seing • The view of the court should convey the Therefore remote paricipants may re- presence of the court to the paricipant quire addiional assistance in order to maintain a demeanour appropriate for a • The remote facility should be comfort- court appearance. able, spacious, clean and private, ideally with an outlook and natural light

5.2 thresholds 67 5.3 the encounter

5.3.1 Presening the remote paricipant • If standards are not met, act immediately to to the court recify (including haling proceedings to follow IMPROVING THE PROCESS necessary steps): Courts should empower staf • Uphold presentaion standards during the link: operaing the equipment to adjust seings to up- Instrucions and training provided to court staf hold standards. Judicial oicers should proacive- operaing videolinks, and to judicial oicers in ly direct those adjustments and, if necessary, halt charge of the court proceedings, should explic- proceedings unil a later date if the basic stand- itly require them to direct atenion to the way ards cannot be met. Explicit direcions regard- that the remote paricipant is framed in the im- ing these standards should be made, and there age provided to the court. This is important as it should be regular monitoring and feedback from may have signiicant implicaions both to how the judicial oicers about what these minimum oper- remote paricipant feels about their presentaion aing standards should be. The presiding judicial to the court, and on how the remote person is oicer should be acively monitoring the quality perceived by those siing in the courtroom. of the link, and considering whether these issues are having an adverse efect on the presentaion The checklist of important features that are out- of the remote paricipant to the court, or on the Figure 29: Example of Picture-in-Picture obscuring view lined earlier in “planning for reconiguraions” remote paricipant’s ability to follow what is oc- of a person in court — this image was taken during should be monitored during the course of pro- curring in the courtroom. Gateways Experiment August 2009. Similar obscurings ceedings, and alteraions made during proceed- were observed during actual court hearings (©Emma • Provide capacity for muliple views during a Rowden). ings as required to uphold the quality of the videolink. For example, a witness is giving evidence videolink: Court staf operaing the videolink and suddenly the vision drops out. It is obviously should be trained to ensure that both the remote a mater for the judicial oicer to decide whether paricipant and any documents, or evidence, that the visual informaion is criical to the witnesses’ they are referring to (displayed via a document tesimony, and whether or not court should be camera or Powerpoint) are able to be viewed si- adjourned so the link can be reinstated. multaneously (on two displays, or a split screen).

68 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings The public should always able to view the evidence being described. Judicial oicers should in- struct lawyers to nominate which views they wish to have to the court oicer operaing the equipment.

• Be alert for distracions and unanicipated efects: The presiding judicial oicer and court- staf should be alert to the potenial for possible unanicipated efects of the videolink, including unintended non-verbal cues. For example, poor placement of camera and screens might result in negaive efects regarding the percepion of the Figure 30: Example of editorial decisions — in these images, the court oicer who was in control of the link had remote paricipant: “looking shity,” for example. to choose whether it was more important at the ime to see the face of the expert witness while they pointed at If the remote paricipant appears distracted, this various places on a diagram, or whether it was more important to enlarge the diagram and have it take up the whole screen in order to make it legible. These images were taken during the Gateways Experiment August 2009 may be an indicaion that there is other acivity (© Emma Rowden). going on in the remote space, or that they feel uncomfortable in that seing due to something ofscreen and out of sight to those in the courtroom. In that type of situaion, the court should be prepared to use its power to take charge and ensure appropriate standards are met (see above) or exercise its power to change the technology and/or environmental seing.

5.3 the encounter 69 • Exert judicial control over the remote space: or visual quality of the link, or any unexpected protocols and guidelines, to take a broad view of the judicial oicer presiding over the hearing change in the view of the courtroom that is pro- what amounts to a failure or breakdown of a should at all imes have ready access to an over- vided to them (for example, if an expert witness videolink, so that they can be planned for and ac- view of the remote space that includes a view of loses vision of the jury, or if a vulnerable witness ion taken at an early stage to maintain the qual- all porions of that space, and all ixtures, iings, is inadvertently given a view of the defendant in ity of the link. Failure may include: furniture and persons within it. Supporing legis- the courtroom). – any dimuniion in the audio or visual laion and court rules should speciically require quality of the link; that the presiding judicial oicer is empowered 5.3.3 Dealing with Breakdowns and Fail- – any unanicipated change in the to direct the conduct of any persons within the ures coniguraion of cameras and screens that remote space and to require adjustments to the impacts adversely on the ability of any Someimes the videolink fails, or is operaing at contents of the room and their coniguraion, and paricipant to be provided with the views less than opimum. This can be due to a variety may adjourn the proceedings unil such direc- that the link was designed to provide of reasons: clouds over satellite coverage, trans- ions are complied with. them with; mission interference, bad recepion and so forth. – any disrupive behaviour by a remote Someimes the consequences are minor. Howev- paricipant; 5.3.2 Presening the courtroom to the er, in other cases, it may prevent the mater con- – any incongruent behaviour by a remote remote paricipant inuing. Strategies need to be in place to assist paricipant: for example, a remote IMPROVING THE PROCESS paricipants as to how to proceed when break- paricipant who appears to be behaving in • Uphold presentaion standards during the downs or failures with the technology take place. link: Informaion and training provided to sup- a way which is inappropriate for their paricipaion in a court hearing; port staf in remote spaces (in the case of assisted IMPROVING THE PROCESS – any apparent distress (including physical links) and to the remote paricipant (especially • Take a broad view of what consitutes a break- illness) experienced by the remote in unassisted links), should explicitly alert them down or failure and have established conin- paricipant that may impair their ability to the need to noify the court if at any stage of gency plans: Court staf and supervising judicial to paricipate in the proceedings. the videolink there is any reducion in the audio oicers shoud be encouraged, through court

70 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings • Encourage all paricipants to noify the judi- formaion, to use their powers under legislaion cial oicer if modiicaions are required or if a that enables the use of videolinks, and under breakdown has occurred: Court protocols for court rules, to deal with breakdowns and failures the operaion of videolinks should require, and by imposing appropriate condiions on the use of empower, any courtroom paricipant (including videolinks and, where appropriate, terminaing the remote paricipant and support staf in the the use of the link. While the exercise of judicial remote space), who becomes aware of a break- discreion should be maintained in relaion to the down or failure, to immediately noify the presid- use of videolinks, legislaion, rules and support- ing judicial oicer. ing court protocols should emphasize the importance of giving priority to maintaining the quality • Judicial oicers should facilitate management of the videolink communicaion. of remote space, and support for remote paricipant: The judicial oicer presiding at the court hearing has the responsibility to invesigate and manage the breakdown or failure. Courts should Figure 31: Conlicing environmental cues (© Emma ensure that judicial oicers have access to imely, Rowden). competent technical support to enable breakdowns and failures to be invesigated and reme- died in a way that minimises the disrupion to the court hearing. Again, this could be facilitated by a centrally-managed remote videolink “helpdesk”.

• Provide training for judicial oicers as to the capacity of the technology: Judicial oicers should be encouraged, through training and in-

5.3 the encounter 71 bar table judge bar table judge

Figure 32: View of CCTV equipment in a remote space Figure 33a: The problem of replicaing eye-contact over videolink: looking at two screens, the remote (© Emma Rowden). paricipant’s eyes will shit from side to side. The paricipant appears to the courtroom to be facing away when talking to the barrister, as the camera taking their image is posiioned above the display that shows them the judge (© Emma Rowden).

72 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings Figure 33b: The problem of replicaing eye-contact over videolink: those in the courtroom only Figure 34: To those in the courtroom, the remote paricipant appears ever see the remote paricipant with downcast eyes as the placement of the camera taking their distracted, and looking away with downcast eyes, while they speak to the image is posiioned above eye-level (© Emma Rowden). barrister. By contrast, the remote paricipant would feel as if they were making eye-contact with the barrister (© Emma Rowden).

5.3 the encounter 73 summary of key issues for ‘the encounter’

KEY ISSUES IMPROVING THE PROCESS IMPROVING THE DESIGN

1) PRESENTING THE REMOTE • Uphold presentaion standards during the (No design issues have been noted here as PARTICIPANT TO THE COURT link, e.g. good audibility; size of paricipant these should be addressed at other stages onscreen is life-size, etc. of the process)

• If standards are not met, act immediately to recify (including haling proceedings to follow necessary steps)

• Provide capacity for muliple views during a videolink

• Be alert for distracions and unanicipated efects

• Exert judicial control over the remote space

2) PRESENTING THE COURTROOM • Uphold presentaion standards during the TO THE REMOTE PARTICIPANT link

74 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings KEY ISSUES IMPROVING THE PROCESS IMPROVING THE DESIGN

3) DEALING WITH BREAKDOWNS AND • Take a broad view of what consitutes a FAILURES: Someimes the videolink breakdown or failure and have established fails, or is operaing at less than opi- coningency plans mum. Strategies need to be in place to assist paricipants as to how to proceed • Encourage all paricipants to noify the ju- when breakdowns or failures with the dicial oicer if modiicaions are required or technology take place. if a breakdown has occurred

• Judicial oicers should facilitate management of remote space, and support for remote paricipant

• Provide training for judicial oicers as to the capacity of the technology

5.3 the encounter 75 5.4 aterwards

5.4.1 Immediately ater the link has important, because their absence from the physi- inished cal courtroom means they are not able to obtain IMPROVING THE PROCESS informaion on the outcome in the usual way. • Deine clearly when the videolink has ended for the remote paricipant and in-court parici- • Post-appearance links to support/lawyer: A pants: The beginning and the end of videolinks defendant being remanded on a prison videolink require punctuaion. It is important that it is clear will usually need to clarify the outcome with their to the remote paricipant when their court par- lawyer; a vulnerable vicim witness will need icipaion is over AND when they are no longer some counselling from their support person and visible or audible to those in the courtroom. This informaion as to the outcome of the case. At- should take the form of verbal advice, given ei- tenion to these maters is largely a mater for ther by the court oicer managing the videolink, the work pracices of defence and prosecuion or by the judicial oicer overseeing it, preferably lawyers. However, the court can encourage and coupled with a visual/audio signal (see IMPROV- facilitate appropriate de-brieing by providing ING THE DESIGN) below. For example, a witness appropriate faciliies for secure communicaion might be told: ‘thank you Ms X, your tesimony (see Appendix B) and providing appropriate sig- is inished. The videolink will shortly be termi- nals. For example, a defendant might be told, as nated. When you see [signal], you can no longer part of the wording when their maters are con- be seen or heard by the court and you are free to cluded that: ”your lawyer will contact you ater leave the room.’ court concludes to answer any quesions you may have.” • Provide de-brieing informaion to the remote paricipant to ensure they have adequate fol- IMPROVING THE DESIGN low-up with support person and/or their law- • Provide faciliies to enable pre- and post-ap- yer: For many remote paricipants, some form pearance links between remote paricipant and of follow-up on their courtroom paricipaion is their support person and/or their lawyer: Mul-

76 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings ipurpose remote spaces should be a standard nical diiculies are detected at an early stage. In atending in the capacity of jury members and feature of courthouses. They can enable a lawyer paricular, there should be: courtroom observers about these issues. This to consult their client before and ater a hearing a) atenion given to the workload of courtroom could be incorporated within exising surveys of (see Appendix B). staf operaing the technology; jury and public saisfacion. b) the level and imeliness of specialist technical 5.4.2 Ongoing support available to the courtroom; • Create regular opportuniies for relecion and IMPROVING THE PROCESS c) and the level of saisfacion of the remote par- feedback from the judiciary, court staf and oth- • Undertake regular reviews of videolink proce- icipant and those in the courtroom with the fol- ers appearing by videolink: There need to be dures (establish a working party): Courts should lowing aspects of the link: regular opportuniies for feedback on the use of conduct regular reviews of the use of videolinks, - availability of views of other paricipants; court videolinks to be considered in a way that the report from which could form part of the - availability of views of documents and enables issues and problems to be ideniied and court’s annual report. This review should be un- exhibits; soluions to be devised. Systemic issues are best dertaken by the working party recommended - audio quality; addressed by means of a working party, report- below and should contain recommendaions for - picture quality; ing to the court or courts within each jurisdicion, improvements/addressing ideniied problems. - availability, quality and operaion of that includes representaives of all agencies in- The review should incorporate perspecives from document cameras or other tools to volved — courts, prosecuion, prisons, forensics, court staf, judicial oicers, and all categories of display documents and exhibits. legal aid, defence bar. Representaives on this remote paricipants, obtained via the feedback For the remote paricipant, this feedback might working party should be staf who work at an op- mechanisms discussed below. be obtain by means of a short quesionnaire ad- eraional level with the technology and the work- ministered aurally, in hard copy or online within ing party’s terms of reference should empower it • Obtain feedback from court users on the re- 24 hours of the use of the videolink. In the case of to make recommendaions to the management mote court experience: There should be a imely vulnerable witnesses, feedback might be sought of each agency concerning: opportunity for courtroom paricipants to pro- from their support person. Court staf, lawyers - changes to operaing procedures for vide feedback on their experience with the op- and judges could be invited to provide such feed- videolinks; erators of the videolink, so that issues relaing to back via an online survey. Courts should also reg- - adjustments to supporing informaion the management of the technology and any tech- ularly seek feedback from members of the public and protocols;

5.4 aterwards 77 - training in the use and operaion of IMPROVING THE DESIGN videolink; • Regularly update the design guidelines for re- - recommendaions for changes in the mote faciliies and courtrooms (Appendix B), coniguraion, type and quality of the and selecion of remote faciliies (Appendix C) technology; based on feedback and recommendaions from - recommendaions for changes in the the review process: Guidelines for the design and coniguraion, type and quality of the built operaion of all relevant faciliies should be regu- environment (and moveable furniture) larly viewed to incorporate feedback and recom- that supports the technology in the court mendaions from the working party referred to room and in the place from which the above. remote paricipant appears.

• Maintain accurate records of both CCTV and videoconference use, as well as other plaforms for audio-visual links such as Skype, to help target improvements: Details to be included: - length of videolink and who established the link (e.g. for a videoconference which locaion made the call); - type of proceeding; and, - detailed locaional informaion (site, jurisdicion, videoconference suite). An example of a proforma we have developed that might be adopted can be found as Appendix D. Cross-jurisdicional discussions should ensure that record keeping is consistent across states.

78 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings summary of key issues for the ‘aterwards’ stage

KEY ISSUES IMPROVING THE PROCESS IMPROVING THE DESIGN

1) IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE LINK • Deine clearly when the videolink has • Provide faciliies to enable pre- and post- HAS FINISHED ended for the remote paricipant and in- appearance links between remote parici- court paricipants pant and their support person and/or their lawyer (see Appendix B) • Provide de-brieing informaion to the remote paricipant to ensure they have adequate follow-up with support person and/ or their lawyer

2) ONGOING • Undertake regular reviews of videolink • Regularly update the design guidelines procedures (establish a working party) for remote faciliies and courtrooms (Ap- pendix B), and selecion of mulipurpose • Obtain feedback from court users on the remote faciliies (Appendix C) based on remote court experience feedback and recommendaions from the review process • Create regular opportuniies for relecion and feedback from the judiciary, court staf and others appearing by videolink

• Maintain accurate records of both CCTV and Videoconference use, as well as other plaforms for audio-visual links such as Sky- pe, to help target improvements (see Ap- pendix D for suggested proforma)

5.4 aterwards 79 6. ‘before and ater’ case studies

The following secion atempts to demonstrate how the above recommendaions to improve the design of remote faciliies might be implemented.

By way of two case studies, we consider the issues involved in designing for: 1. a remote space in a heritage building; 2. exising purpose-built remote spaces.

For the irst example, we also provide suggesions to improve exising condiions (for example, when funds are not currently available for more substanial changes to the built fabric). When more substanial changes are possible, we have suggested how the built environment might be altered to create environments consistent with the ‘best pracice’ principles as ariculated in these guidelines.

For new buildings, the design should follow the guidance outlined in Appendix B.

Figure 35: View of Remote Space in a heritage building (© Emma Rowden).

80 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings 6.1 a remote space in a heritage building

Figure 36: Clockwise from top: looking back towards door; view of screens; view of Judge; self-view on let screen, Judge’s overview on right screen (© Emma Rowden).

6.1 a remote space in a heritage building 81 ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING SPACE

Key concerns: Key features to potenially retain:

• Dimensions: Narrow and claustrophobic space • Secure waiing area: Currently there is no se- • Threshold: While the pariion makes the room (although this is partly counteracted by the gen- cure private waiing area atached to this space. even smaller, and should be removed, it perhaps erous ceiling height). In paricular, the width of A separate entry/exit to and from this space helps to create a sense of the threshold. room is inadequate for the comfortable move- without going through the main public entrance ment of a paricipant and their support person. would be ideal. • Verical Dimension: Floor to ceiling height at over 3.5m is generous (well above the usual 2.5 • Finishes: Exposed cabling and incongruous be- • Technology: table mounted microphone cre- - 2.7m domesic-scaled ceiling height), and helps havioural cues to the court seing. Cluter, ex- ates greater risk of feedback; person posiioned compensate for the narrow dimension of the posed cabling and extraneous furniture should close to camera (“eye-balled”); two screen con- room. be removed. iguraion coupled with close posiion to technology means that the person is more likely to • Technology: Posiion of cameras and close- be switching their head back and forth between ness of seaing to screens encourage a noiceable monitors. movement of the remote paricipant’s head from side to side as they switch their focus from the let screen to the right and vice versa. In other words, there is not enough depth between remote paricipant and the images that they are focusing on.

82 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings REMOTE SPACE IN A HERITAGE BUILDING REMOTE SPACE IN A HERITAGE SECTION @ 1:50 BUILDING PLAN @ 1:50

6.1 a remote space in a heritage building 83 remedial changes (minimal alteraion to built fabric)

• New single screen videoconferencing unit; cam- • New ceiling mounted • Remove air era placed to simulate eye- microphone. conditioning contact as closely as possible • New judge’s overview unit, replace camera with loor vents or discrete sys- • New potplant and/or tem to rear of • Retain separaion be- artwork room adjacent tween equipment and min. distance • New loor-mounted to door. Re- table for paricipant. 1.5m-2m data panel for new store window Move back table and document camera, if re- to original and chair for remote parici- quired, or use of tablet / use transluscent pant to allow them to laptop. glass for privacy ind a comfortable dis- where required. tance from the screens • New comfortable • Remove pariion and height-adjustable chair • Finishes: extraneous furniture. (non-swivelling) Exposed cabling and incongruous behavioural cues to the court REMOTE SPACE IN A seing. Cluter, HERITAGE BUILDING and extraneous REMOTE SPACE IN A SECTION @ 1:50 furniture should HERITAGE \BUILDING be removed; ca- PLAN @ 1:50 bling should be concealed.

84 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings proposed ‘best pracice’ changes (including alteraions to built fabric)

RE-DESIGNED REMOTE WITNESS SUITE WITHIN A NEW “SECURE AREA” FACILITY: (Note: this is a hypotheical soluion only; this plan does not take into account any heritage restricions and/or other concerns with the layout of the enire loorplan such as ameniies). • Larger Remote Witness Suite: A generous sized room, (well over the min. 3.5m x 3.5m room required). • Integrated Technology: technology is able to be beter integrated into joinery due to enlarged space provided, can also allow for improvements to technology. • Greater natural light and views to enhance comfort: two windows to outside (with operable blinds to adjust natural lighing intensity and direcion). Ability to look outside can be balanced against amount of daylight desired, or theoreically opimum. • Large waiing area and ameniies: generous waiing area, with ability to have borrowed views and light through the remote witness suite, with shared secure kitchenete and secure bathrooms (with separate air-lock), and separate entrance from outside. Potenial to use ‘digi-glass’ in window openings to exising light well (or lit core that is adjacent to waiing area) that could have relaxing images of landscape, back-lit to create impression of light. • Good proximity to Vicim Support Oices: This allows for the NEW SECURE AREA IN waiing area to double as a waiing area for those wishing to A HERITAGE BUILDING atend court in person, but who need a secure space to wait. PLAN @ 1:100

6.1 a remote space in a heritage building 85 6.2 exising purpose-built remote spaces

ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING REMOTE SPACES Key concerns: • Dimensions: Many of the spaces are of insuicient depth to cater for adequate distances between screen and viewer to enable a view of the remote paricipant’s upper torso in court. EXISTING DESIGN OF REMOTE FACILITY SUITES 1:100 • Waiing: Insuicient area and lack of natural light and views for long- periods of waiing inside secure area. WC (toilet) has no air-lock. Other adjacent general waiing room is not secure. • Muli-purpose remote room: Need to provide a muli-purpose remote space for lawyers to access clients at remand centre and/or vicims to access other services remotely.

86 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings PROPOSED RE-DESIGN OF THE REMOTE FACILITY SUITES 1:100

• Dimensions: Two of the exising spaces en- and other calming features. This space can dou- • WC: New WC (toilet) has airlock, and potenial larged to accommodate newer technologies. One ble as a secure waiing area for other vulnerable for venilaion. remote space enlarged to provide greater amen- court paricipants. ity. Fourth remote space converted to mulipur- • Muli-purpose remote room: A muli-purpose pose remote space. Diferent sizes create lexibil- remote space for lawyers to access clients at re- ity depending on needs of diferent users. mand centre and/ or vicims to access other serv- • Waiing: Larger waiing area that provides ices remotely. Control access prevents one door greater amenity - natural light and views - as well being used when other in operaion to ensure se- as more room to undertake diferent aciviies, in- curity of faciliies, while providing opimum uili- cluding watching television; can have pot-plants saion of remote capacity.

6.2 existing purpose-built remote spaces 87 7. glossary

AEC (Acousic Echo Cancellaion) – The method which law to apply in proceedings in which a split of cancelling out far end speech from the local court is siing, the Court is taken to be siing at microphones. If not implemented a feedback the place at which the presiding Judge is siing.” loop is created whereby the local person speak- Family Law Act (1975), s27(3). (Rowden, 2011: ing would hear their voice come back from the far 18). end. AEC is one component of DSP.

Dw, Weighted Sound Level Diference – a con- DSP (Digital Signal Processor) – Uilising of venient, single igure value represening the over- specialist signal processing in the digital realm to all diference in sound level (across a broad fre- modify the audio signals. Can consist of many quency range) required between two rooms. diferent processors, including equalisaion, gain, compression and limiing, AEC, spliing and mix- EAD (Equivalent Acousic Distance) – By amplify- ing of audio signals. ing a talker’s speech, a sound system reduces the apparent acousic distance between a talker and Distributed Court – The term distributed court distant listener. The equivalent acousic distance is preferred over ‘virtual court’ as it implies the deines the resuling acousic distance between distribuion of the court space over several loca- the talker and listener. ions, without the implied ‘insubstanial’ or ‘fake’ connotaions of the term ‘virtual’ (see Rowden H.264SVC – H.264 is a video compression stand- 2011). In this deiniion, the distributed court has ard developed by the ITU (Internaional Telecom- one siing judge, as disinct from the example municaions Union) Video Coding Expert Group given in the Family Law Act (Australia) that de- together with ISO and IEC Joint Working Group, ines a court consituted by two or more judges probably best known as the video compression siing at the same ime but in diferent places standard used for Blu-Ray discs. SVC (Scalable linked by audio-visual technologies as a ‘split Video Coding) is the name given to the Annex G court,’ staing: “for the purposes of determining extension, which standardises the encoding of

88 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings high quality video bitstreams that contain sub- Remote Witness Room (or, Remote Witness Fa- kitchenete / tea bench faciliies adjacent. Some- set bitstreams represening lower resoluion for cility) – remote witness rooms have now become imes these spaces have windows, or access to lower bitrates. a standard feature of Australian courthouses, built natural light, but this is not always the case. Child since the early 1990s, with guidance for architects witness units (that are specialist remote witness IPV6 - IPv6 (Internet Protocol version 6) is intend- as to their purpose, minimum requirements and faciliies provided as a comprehensive support ed to succeed IPv4, which is the current commu- features provided in court design guidelines. In service) may also include a place for the child’s nicaions protocol for the internet. IPv6 address some older court buildings, or in more remote or family to wait, as well as areas to view pre-re- consist of eight groups of four hexadecimal dig- regional areas, the total accommodaion provid- corded tesimony, or the police video-recorded its separated by colons, providing approximately ed might be a single room posiioned of a main interview, prior to appearance over the videolink 3.4x10(36) unique addresses compared to only public corridor, with no separate access. In some for the cross-examinaion (Adapted from: Row- 4,294,967,296 addresses world-wide for IPv4. very remote communiies, vulnerable and child den, forthcoming). IPv4 addresses consist of four groups of three witnesses may have to give their evidence from digits separated by a decimal point. an interview room in a police staion or in a mul- RT (Reverberaion Time) – a key design param- ipurpose room. The videolink equipment (CCTV eter used by acousic engineers, this represents P-I-P (Picture-in-Picture) – an inset image (usu- or videoconferencing) is someimes placed on a the ime taken for a sound in a room to decay by ally posiioned to the botom right hand corner of movable trolley, or is someimes built-in, and the 60dB ater the sound source is turned of. a screen) during a videoconference that provides brief for the room generally results in a size from a second viewpoint (for example, a close-up view anywhere between eight to iteen square me- SIP (Session Iniiaion Protocol) – deines a sig- of the Judge’s face or a self-view of the remote tres. The ceiling heights of remote witness rooms nalling protocol widely used for controlling voice paricipant). and their associated faciliies are generally under and video calls over IP. three metres compared those of courtrooms that Remote Paricipaion – ‘remote paricipaion’ are generally lotier and higher. In more recent STI (Speech Transmission Index) – a standard- denotes partaking in aciviies in one locaion designs, the remote witness room may also be at- ised objecive measure of speech intelligibility from another locaion, enabled by communica- tached to a private and secure area — the remote and the degree of distorion imparted by the au- ion technologies (such as radio, telephone, vide- witness facility — which includes a waiing area dio system and room acousics; where 1.0 indi- oconferencing, the internet). (Rowden 2011: 67). and separate ameniies including bathroom and cates perfect reproducion and 0 indicates that

7. glossary 89 the reproduced signal bears no relaion to the input.

URI (Uniform Resource Ideniier) Dialling – Provides an email-like naming convenion “fred@ mycompany.com” that can be used for a video conferencing address.

Threshold – A term most widely used in architecture to denote the transiion from one seing to another. A threshold may mean movement between inside and outside, or the transiion between ‘on air’ and ‘of air’ during an audio-visual link. Therefore, thresholds may be physical (such as crossing a doorway, a window or another opening), or mental (entering a new social seing).

Videolink – used here as a cover-all term to denote both CCTV (closed-circuit television) and videoconferenced-enabled links. This term is used oten in the literature, paricularly in those writen within a UK-context.

90 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings 8. selected bibliography

Atorney General’s Department of NSW. (2005). Braun, S., & Taylor, J. L. (Eds.). (2011). Videocon- Davies, G., M., & Noon, E. (1991). An evaluaion NSW Criminal Trials Benchbook: Remote Witness ference and remote interpreing in criminal proof the live link for child witnesses. London: Home Faciliies, operaional guidelines for Judicial Of- ceedings. Guidford: University of Surrey. Availa- Oice. icers. Accessed on 12/05/10 at . Burton, M., Evans, R., & Sanders, A. (2007). Vul- sion and Judgment. New York: New York Univer- nerable and inimidated witnesses and the adver- sity Press. Australian Law Reform Commission. (1997). Seen sarial process in England and Wales. Internaional and heard: priority for children in the legal proc- Journal of Evidence & Proof, 11(1), 1-23. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to ess, Report no. 84. Canberra: Australian Govt. visual percepion. Boston: Houghton Milin. Pub. Service. Cashmore, J., & Trimboli, L. (2005). An Evalua- ion of the NSW Child Sexual Assault Specialist Gibson, J. J. (1977). ‘The Theory of Afordances’. Australian Law Reform Commission. (1992). Chil- Jurisdicion Pilot. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, act- dren’s Evidence: Closed Circuit TV, Report No. 63. Staisics and Research. Accessed on 17/05/10 at ing, and knowing : toward an ecological psychol- Sydney: Australian Govt. Pub. Service. . New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; distrib- Australian Law Reform Commission. (1989). Chil- uted by the Halsted Press Division, Wiley. dren’s Evidence by Video Link, Discussion Paper CISCO Pty Ltd. (2011). Cisco TelePresence System No. 40. Fyshwick A.C.T.: Australian Govt. Pub. 3210 Assembly, Use & Care, and Field-Replace- Goodsell, C. T. (1988). The social meaning of civic Service. able Unit Guide. Pdf Accessed on 23/08/11 at space: studying poliical authority through archi- . witnesses working? Evidence from the criminal jusice agencies. London: Home Oice.

8. selected bibliography 91 Gunawardena, C. (1995). ‘Social presence theory Libai, D. (1968-69). The Protecion of the Child Orcut, H. K., Goodman, G. S., Tobey, A. E., Bater- and implicaions for interacion and collaboraive Vicim of a Sexual Ofense in the Criminal Jusice man-Faunce, J. M., & Thomas, S. (2001). Detect- learning in computer conferences’. Internaional System. Wayne Law Review, 15, 997-1032. ing Decepion in Children’s Tesimony: Facfind- Journal of Educaional Telecommunicaions, 1(2), ers’ Abiliies to Reach the Truth in Open Court 147-166. Ministerie van Jusiie The Netherlands. (2008). and Closed-Circuit Trials. Law and Human Behav- Videoconferencing in the Netherlands Jusice: ior, 25(4), 339-372. Government of Western Australia: Department True to Life Requirements. The Hague: Ministerie of the Atorney General. (2009). Courts Standard van Jusiie. Pipe, M.-E., & Henaghan, M. (1996). Accommo- Design Brief. Perth: Department of the Atorney daing children’s tesimony: legal reforms in New General. Mulcahy, L. (2011). Legal Architecture: Jusice, Zealand. Criminal Jusice and Behavior, 23(2), Due Process and the Place of Law. Abingdon: 377-325. Hall, M. (2007). The Use and Abuse of Special Routledge. Measures: Giving Vicims the Choice? Journal of Plotnikof, J., & Woolfson, R. (2009). Measuring Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Mulcahy, L. (2008). The Unbearable Lightness of Up? Evaluaing implementaion of Government Prevenion, 8(1), 33-53. Being? Shits Towards the Virtual Trial. Journal of commitments to young witnesses in criminal pro- Law & Society, 35(4), 464-489. ceedings. London: NSPCC. Hamlyn, B., Phelps, A., Turtle, J., & Satar, G. (2004). Are Special measures working? Parker, S. (1998). Courts and The Public. Mel- Plotnikof, J., & Woolfson, R. (2004). In Their Own Evidence from surveys of vulnerable and inimi- bourne: Australian Insitute of Judicial Adminis- Words: The experiences of 50 young witnesses in dated witnesses. London: The Home Oice. traion Incorporated. criminal proceedings. London: NSPCC.

Lang, J. T. (1987). Creaing architectural theory: O’Grady, C. (1996). Child witnesses and jury trials: Plotnikof, J., & Woolfson, R. (1999). Preliminary the role of the behavioral sciences in environmen- an evaluaion of the use of closed circuit televi- Hearings: Video Links Evaluaion of Pilot Projects. tal design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. sion and removable screens in Western Australia. London: The Home Oice. Perth: Report prepared for the Ministry of Jusice, Western Australia.

92 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings Poulin, A. B. (2004). Criminal jusice and video Rowden, E. (forthcoming). The Remote Witness St John Kennedy, L. & Tait, D. (1999) Court Per- conferencing technology: The remote defendant. Facility for vulnerable and child witnesses: new specives: Architecture, Psychology and West- Tulane Law Review, 78, 1089-1167. perspecives on an emerging spaial typology. ern Australian Law Reform. Accessed on In Brancos, P. (Ed.) Sociologia do(s) Espaço(s) da 21/01/12 at court of law. Glänta (Swedish version), 1/2007, 86-98. Rowden, E. (2011). Remote Paricipaion and the Sternberg, E. M. (2009). Healing spaces: the sci- Distributed Court: an approach to court architec- ence of place and well-being. Cambridge, Mass.: Rapoport, A. (1982). The meaning of the built ture in the age of video-mediated communica- Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. environment: a nonverbal communicaion ap- ions. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Mel- proach. Beverly Hills: Sage Publicaions. bourne, Melbourne. Abstract available at . Reform Strategy — Final Evaluaion Report. Reid Howie Associates. (2002). Vulnerable and Melbourne: Department of Jusice Victoria. Ac- Inimidated Witnesses: Review of Provisions Rowden, E., Wallace, A., & Goodman-Delahunty, cessed on 17/07/11 at < htp://www.jusice.vic. in Other Jurisdicions. Edinburgh: Scoish Ex- J. (2010). Sentencing by videolink: Up in the Air? gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/justlib/DOJ+Internet/ ecuive Central Research Unit. Accessed on Criminal Law Journal, 34(6), 363-384. Home/The+Justice+System/JUSTICE+- 12/11/09 at . Short, J., Williams, W., & Chrisie, B. (1976). The aion+Report+%28PDF%29>. social psychology of Telecommunicaions, Lon- Rice, D. E. (1993). ‘Media Appropriateness: Using don: Wiley. Taylor, N., & Joudo, J. (2005). The impact of pre- Social Presence Theory to Compare Tradiional recorded video and closed circuit television tes- and New Organisaional Media’. Human Commu- imony by adult sexual assault complainants on nicaion Research 19 (4), 451 - 484 jury decision-making: an experimental study (Re- port No. 68). Canberra, ACT: Australian Insitute of Criminology.

8. selected bibliography 93 van Roterdam, P., & van den Hoogen, R. (2011). True-to-life requirements for using videoconferencing in legal proceedings. In S. Braun & J. L. Taylor (Eds.), Videoconference and remote interpreing in criminal proceedings (pp. 187-197). Guidford: University of Surrey.

Vermeys, N. (2008). Ritual, Symbolism and . . . Cyberjusice?: A relecion on how ritualisic pracices seem to hinder the integraion of technology into the legal process. Paper presented at the AIJA Law and Technology Conference, Sydney.

Victoria Design Guide Standing Commitee (1989). Court Buildings in Victoria - A Design Guide (Working Papers Drat 2, Rev. 0), Melbourne: De- partment of the Atorney General’s Victoria.

Wallace, A. (2011). Jusice and the ‘Virtual’ Ex- pert: Using Remote Witness Technology to take Forensic Evidence. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Uni- versity of Sydney, Sydney.

94 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings appendix a: table of australian legislaion enabling remote court paricipaion by videolink (as at 30th June 2012)

For vulnerable witnesses Jurisdicion Legislaion Applies to Presumpion Pre-recording Condiions in favour Commonwealth Family Law Rules Child witness. Support person may 2004 (Cth) r 15.02. be present Crimes Act 1914 Child witness in ‘sex tourism’ and related Support person/ (Cth) s 15YI ofences. interpreter/ and/or court oice may be present NSW Criminal Procedure Witnesses with intellectual disability/ Yes Yes (for Support person/ Act 1986 (NSW) cogniive impairment or who, because of their evidence interpreter/ and/or ss306ZB circumstances or the circumstances of the case, of prior court oice may be would be specially disadvantaged if not treated statements) – S present as a vulnerable witness 206S VIC Criminal Procedure Children and those with a cogniive impairment Yes Yes Presence of support Act 2009 (VIC) s369 person QLD Evidence Act 1997 Children Yes Yes Presence of support (QLD) s 21AB(a) person/s SA Evidence Act 1929 Witness who is likely to sufer stress or Yes Yes Availablity of faciliies (SA) s 4,13. embarrassment. Child or adult vicim of Lack of prejudice to sexual or other serious assault. Witnesses with any party intellectual disability/cogniive impairment or who, because of their circumstances or the circumstances of the case, would be specially disadvantaged if not treated as a vulnerable witness appendix a: table of australian legislation enabling remote court participation by videolink 95 Jurisdicion Legislaion Applies to Presumpion Pre-recording Condiions in favour WA Evidence Act 1906 Person declared to be ‘special witness’ on the Yes Yes Support person and (WA) ss 106R, 106I, grounds of intellectual, mental or physical ‘communicator’ may 106K disability, age, cultural background, relaionship be present (funcion to any party to the proceeding, the nature of of later it to explain the subject mater of the evidence or any other quesions to child and factor the court considers relevant. explain child’s answer to court) TAS Evidence (Children Person declared to be ‘special witness on the Yes Court oicer and and Special grounds of intellectual, mental or physical support person may Witnesses) Act disability, age, cultural background, relaionship be present. 2001 (TAS) to any party to the proceeding, the nature of the subject mater of the evidence or any other ss 3,6, 8 factor the court considers relevant.’ Child witness in sexual assault etc, cases.

96 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings Jurisdicion Legislaion Applies to Presumpion Pre-recording Condiions in favour NT Evidence Act 1939 Child or adult vicim of sexual or other serious Interests of jusice (NT) s 21A assault, witnesses with intellectual disability/ Whether the urgency cogniive impairment or who, because of their of the mater renders circumstances or the circumstances of the case, it inappropriate would be specially disadvantaged if not treated as a vulnerable witness ACT Evidence Yes. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) pt 4 s div 4.2B

For other categories of witness Jurisdicion Legislaion Type of witness Presumpion in favour Applies to Condiions of remote Commonwealth NSW Evidence (Audio and ‘government Yes – but court can make NSW courts Link available Audio Visual Links) Act agency’ witness e.g. an excepion where the taking evidence or ‘reasonably’ 1998 (NSW) s 5BAA government forensic evidence is contenious, from within NSW available. scienists and it is ‘in the interests of the administraion of jusice’ for the witness to appear physically before the court.

appendix a: table of australian legislation enabling remote court participation by videolink 97 For any witness Jurisdicion Legislaion Applies to Condiions Commonwealth Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s Federal, Family and Federal Magistrates’ courts – Link available or 47A-C, 59(2A); Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s taking evidence from within Australia ‘reasonably’ available. 102C-F, 123(1)(ma); Federal Magistrates Act All ‘appropriate’ 1999 (Cth) s 66, s 69(1); persons must be able to see and hear Addiional condiions can be imposed under court rules or by the judge in the paricular case. NSW Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act NSW courts – taking evidence from within NSW and Link available or 1998 (NSW) s 5B interstate ‘reasonably’ available. ‘convenience’ Whether the witness will in fact appear if a link is used ‘fairness’ ‘interests of jusice’ (where the link is opposed) Addiional condiions can be imposed under court rules

98 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings Jurisdicion Legislaion Applies to Condiions VIC Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 VIC courts – taking evidence from within VIC and ‘fairness’ (implied) (VIC) s 42E interstate All ‘appropriate’ persons must be able to see and hear As set out in court rules. QLD Evidence Act 1997 (QLD) s 39R QLD courts – taking evidence from within QLD Addiional condiions can be imposed under QLD courts – taking evidence from interstate court rules Evidence Act 1997 (QLD) s 39E SA Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 591Q SA courts – taking evidence from within SA Addiional condiions can be imposed under Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 59IE SA courts – taking evidence from interstate court rules Link available or ‘reasonably’ available. WA Evidence Act 1906 (WA) WA courts – taking evidence from within WA and Link available or interstate. ‘reasonably’ available. s 121(1)-(2) ‘interests of jusice’ As set out in court rules? Family Court Act 1997 (WA) s 219AB-AE Family Court of WA – taking evidence from within Australia All ‘appropriate’ persons must be able to see and hear Addiional condiions can be imposed under court rules

appendix a: table of australian legislation enabling remote court participation by videolink 99 Jurisdicion Legislaion Applies to Condiions TAS Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act Tasmanian courts – taking evidence from within Link available or 1999 (Tas) Tasmania. ‘reasonably’ available. ‘convenience’ s 6 ‘fairness’ NT Evidence Act 1939 (NT) s 49E-F Northern Territory courts – taking evidence from Link available or within the NT. ‘reasonably’ available. ‘convenience’ ‘fairness’ All ‘appropriate’ persons must be able to see and hear Addiional condiions can be imposed by the judge in the paricular case. ACT Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 ACT courts (other than Supreme and Magistrates’ Link available or (ACT) ss 31, 32(1) Courts)1* – taking evidence from within the ACT ‘reasonably’ available. ‘convenience’ ‘fairness’ Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 ACT courts (other than Supreme and Magistrates’ Link available or (ACT) s 20(1) Courts)2* – taking evidence from outside the ACT ‘reasonably’ available.

100 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings Defendants – prisonlinks Jurisdicion Legislaion Applies to Condiions NSW Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 All appearances other than Link available or ‘reasonably’ (NSW) s 5B iniial bail hearing, enquiry available. into itness to stand trial and ‘convenience’ trial. ‘fairness’ Accused willing to appear by av link VIC Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 (VIC) s Bail applicaions, remand, Use must be ‘consistent with the 42K-42S special menions, interests of jusice’ adjournments, arraignment, except for irst appearances (unless Defendant consents), commitals, trials, sentencing hearings, appeals and inquiries into itness to stand trial (unless the court otherwise directs). QLD District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (QLD) s Bail remand or appeal 110C(3); Jusices Act 1886 (QLD) s 178C(3); hearings – in other proceedings by consent.

appendix a: table of australian legislation enabling remote court participation by videolink 101 Jurisdicion Legislaion Applies to Condiions SA Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 59IQ All appearances, other than Existence of faciliies for remote enquiry into itness to stand appearance trial, irst appearance on Paries must have reasonable indictable ofence, there are opportunity to object ‘good reasons’ for personal appearance, or Defendant is appearing in other maters for which personal appearance is required. WA Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) ss 77(4), 88, 140- All appearances, other than Reasonable availability of link. 141 irst appearances, unless court otherwise diret TAS Jusices Rules 2003 (Tas) s 67 Any purpose, unless court otherwise directs.

* NOTES In effect rendering the provision inoperable as there are no other ACT courts.

102 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings appendix b: guidelines for the design and construcion of remote court faciliies and videolinked courtrooms

These guidelines outline the following: - Document cameras & audio- - Acousics visual demonstraive Aids - Natural Light & Views 1. Minimum standards for the design and - Journey to Court - Waiing areas construcion of new Dedicated Remote Facili- - Ariculaing the threshold ies, or, the upgrading of exising faciliies c. BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE - Cabling a. AUDIO SYSTEM - Structural Loads (including Design Criteria) - Microphones d. NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE - Audio Signal Processing - Faciliies - Loudspeakers - Sotware Clients and BYOD - Adjustable Volume - Management & Network Control - Firewall Traversal b. VIDEO SYSTEM - The Future - Display Quality - Life-size proporions e. REMOTE SPACE DESIGN - Eye-contact (including Acousic and Lighing Design - Display Placement for muliple Criteria) views - Room Width - Self-View Funcion - Room Depth - Judicial Oicer Overview - Room Volume - Clear disincion evident to - Furniture & Loose Fiings remote paricipants between - Ambience being “in court” and “out of - Lighing court” - Background Plane - Integraion

appendix b: guidelines for the design and construction of remote court facilities and videolinked courtrooms 103 2. Minimum standards for courtrooms that d. COURTROOM DESIGN can host a videolinked connecion - Integraion and Ambience - Natural Light & Views a. AUDIO SYSTEM (including Audio Design Criteria) e. ADDITION OF MULTIPURPOSE REMOTE - Loudspeaker system SPACE FOR FOLLOW-UP VIDEOLINKS - Microphones - Locaion within the courthouse - Audio Signal Processing - Transcript & Recording systems b. VIDEO SYSTEM - Small Format Displays - Videoconferencing Display for the Remote Paricipant - Addiional Displays - Camera - Pre-Set Camera Posiions - Life-size proporions - Judge Overview Display c. INFRASTRUCTURE - Cabling - Structural Loads - Network Bandwidth

104 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings 1. Minimum standards for the de a. AUDIO SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA FOR AUDIO SYSTEM sign and construcion of new Dedicated • General: Remembering that remote parici- SUGGESTED BY ICE DESIGN Remote Faciliies, or, the upgrading of ex- pants may not be pracised speakers but nervous, sotly-spoken witnesses whose irst lan- Performance Target ising faciliies guage is not English, the audio system and room The loudspeaker system for remote fa- acousics must be designed holisically and to ciliies should be designed to achieve the following performance requirements at the These guidelines outline the recommended a high standard that ensures speech is reliably listener posiion: standards for the design of dedicated remote wit- captured and reproduced with clarity, naturalness faciliies, or the upgrading of exising facilit- ness of tone and freedom from noise. ies. When considering designing a mulipurpose Frequency response space within another jusice agency, it should be [direct ield + 150ms Half Hanning ime The adjacent design criteria provides a mini- window] considered primarily in terms of its design as a mum standard for the design of the audio and Remote Witness Facility with the ability to incor- +/-2dB over range 130 Hz to 12kHz with 1 electroacousics system for new or refurbished octave wide smoothing (listener assumed porate other funcions rather than vice-versa. remote faciliies. The services of a qualiied to be on axis to loudspeaker) acousician should be sought to interpret the The goal is to achieve efortless communicaion, design criteria according to the speciic demands EAD <2.2m (to recreate listener condi- both in aural and visual domains, so paricipants of each project (see glossary for deiniions of ions equivalent to those in close conversa- are free to concentrate on the subject mater EAD and STI). ion) rather than on discerning the spoken word and STI > 0.70 (measured using a line- visual communicaion of the other party. It is • Microphones: level signal input to local equipment) paricularly important to note that an absence of In general, microphones should be placed as complaints from an exising facility does not nec- close to the talker posiion as possible (and away Minimum sound pressure level essarily imply that there are no diiculies with from noise sources such as air condiioning, fan speech intelligibility or visual issues. 70dB Leq(lin) at listening posiion when driven AV equipment etc) to maximise the raio measured with band-limited pink noise of useful direct speech to detrimental room re- (125Hz to 12kHz) verberance and background noise. Microphones

appendix b: guidelines for the design and construction of remote court facilities and videolinked courtrooms 105 should be discrete to ensure the technology ence applicaions, its mouning posiion directly does not present an unnecessary visual distrac- in front of the paricipant may be unduly visually ion or otherwise inhibit paricipants behaving prominent. The exact posiion of its mount- in a natural manner when communicaing over ing posiion shall allow suicient space for the videolink. Three generic types of microphone posiioning of books and papers between the are commonly encountered in remote faciliies, paricipant and the microphone whilst minimis- as listed below: ing noise disturbance from paper documents and keyboards. The microphone mount must Quarter-space ceiling microphone: provide good vibraion isolaion to minimise the Common versions of this device comprise of a transfer of ‘bumps’ to the desk into the micro- large format, inverted L shape perspex construc- phone. ion, suspended immediately below the ceiling and out of sight for the camera and the remote Low proile boundary microphone: conference paricipant. It is suited to remote The use of low proile boundary microphones on conferencing applicaions only but has the dis- top of the table is generally discouraged as they inct advantage of a wide pickup patern that is are paricularly sensiive to bumps to the desk not overly sensiive to variaions in speaker posi- and noise generated by documents being passed ion in the room. Provided the room acousics over the table surface. Furthermore, due to and ambient noise levels are properly designed, their low proile, there is a tendency for papers this opion presents a compelling soluion for to be placed over microphones rendering them remote faciliies. inefecive. Both issues can cause signiicant interference to transmited speech signals without Gooseneck microphone: the remote paricipant even being aware. A desk-mounted gooseneck microphone provides the most robust pickup characterisics if • Audio Signal Processing: It is strongly recom- Figure B1: Quarter-space ceiling microphone above; example of table-mounted low proile boundary posiioned correctly though, in remote confer- mended that every local audio system incorpo- microphone which is prone to picking up noise generated by remote paricipant (© Emma Rowden).

106 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings rates a dedicated audio digital signal processor nicaion experience for the remote conference deiniion cameras of at least 720 lines (720p) (DSP) to enable full equalisaion and alignment paricipant. The loudspeaker and mouning should be chosen. of each audio input and output chain in the re- arrangement should be discrete to ensure the mote facility. For most applicaions, the required technology does not present an unnecessary vis- • Display quality: High-deiniion, professional processing capabiliies exceed the funcionality ual distracion or otherwise inhibit paricipants grade screens supporing muliple signal formats normally ofered in videoconferencing codecs. behaving in a natural manner when communi- up to 1080p resoluions are required to achieve Efecive, independent and adapive DSP based caing over videolink. (The use of loudspeakers a suiciently detailed image of far end par- acousic echo cancellaion (AEC) shall be em- within the video monitor is discouraged due to icipants and transmited document images to ployed on each and every microphone input to the poor sound quality normally associated with achieve a convincing ‘telepresence’ experience reduce echo and feedback. AEC processing must these installaions). Refer to the side panel for for all paries involved. A low relecivity inish is be installed in both court and remote sites to performance requirements of the audio system preferred to reduce distracing relecions of the reduce echo back into respecive locaions. The on p105. paricipant under the videoconferencing lighing microphone gaing (or automaic selecion of the system. (Be wary of an increasing industry trend microphone being spoken into) is a vital com- • Adjustable volume: The remote paricipant (or to procure domesic display models with lower ponent in achieving clear reliable transmission their delegated support person) should be able colour depth, sharpness and longevity). of speech. However, care must be taken when to adjust the sound they receive from the court- commissioning the system so that no speech is room to a comfortable level. Informaion should • Life-size proporions: Screen size should be lost due to the gaing operaion. be made available to the remote paricipant so adequate to allow courtroom paricipants to that they aware that they may do this. appear life-size to remote paricipant, and vice- • Loudspeakers: A single high quality full range versa. Generally this is achieved with a 50” dis- loudspeaker must be selected for the reproduc- play. Although a portrait, rather than landscape, ion of speech and transmited audio evidence orientaion of the screens would be beter suited from the court. The loudspeaker should be c. VIDEO SYSTEM to present a paricipant’s head and torso and placed as close as possible to the video image(s) Based on current best pracice, the video system enable a greater amount of body language to be of those speaking in order to co-locate vision infrastructure should be designed to support captured at either end, current industry pracice and sound and create a more natural commu- resoluions of up to 1080 lines (1080p). High dictates that landscape should be used for reli-

appendix b: guidelines for the design and construction of remote court facilities and videolinked courtrooms 107 able compaibility with other sites and videocon- • Display placement for muliple views: More ferencing plaforms. There may be a require- than one view of the courtroom is oten required ment for larger display sizes when “side by side” and recommended (e.g. one screen showing images, or muli-site conferences are used on a judge, another showing bar table). The two single display, as this limits the individual screen views should be arranged in conjuncion with sizes associated with each remote image. the placement of the camera, to be comfortably viewed by remote paricipant and to minimise • Eye-Contact: Cameras must always be co-locat- instances where the remote paricipant looks ed with the display that corresponds to the im- away from the lens of the camera. There is a age of the far-end paricipant in the courtroom. strong case for providing two cameras in remote Ideally, the camera would be placed in line of faciliies, one to serve the Judge (co-located sight, i.e. where the remote paricipant would with the Judge’s image) and one to serve the bar Figure B2:’lifesize’ proporions - tests should be done in look to view the faces of those in the courtroom, table and the rest of the courtroom (co-located in an atempt to simulate eye-contact. Pracical with the bar table image). However, this would court to check the appearance of the size of the head limitaions dictate that the camera is usually best have to be implemented as part of a consistent and torso of the videolinked witness, with the size of a posiioned immediately below the display. policy for the corresponding courtroom video witness in the witness box (© Emma Rowden). Future Technologies: best pracice would involve system designs. the placement of the camera in line-of-sight, behind the eye-line of the remote paricipant. • Self-view funcion: The remote paricipant Emerging products include a soluion that in- should be able to check how they will look to the corporates “one-way” mirrored glass to conceal courtroom. A self-view funcion should be made the camera behind the veiling relecion of the available that can be operated by the remote far end camera image – however, these display paricipant themselves, including being able to devices currently require a depth of around 1m be turned of for the duraion of the court ap- behind the front of the equipment (see DVE ex- pearance, as some paricipants may ind it too ample shown Figure 22, p51). distracing. Self view may occur as a picture-in-

108 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings picture on a main display, or it could be pre- necion point for computer generated evidence of sexual assault, its use could be considered for viewed on a separate conidence monitor which should be available as standard pracice in all other categories of court paricipants, as appro- could also be used to conirm the transmited remote paricipaion faciliies, and in the court- priate technologies become more widely avail- image from remote facility document cameras room, to enable the display of documents, ex- able and afordable. etc. hibits, photographs etc. Appropriate tools should be available to enable audio or audiovisual ma- • Judicial Oicer Overview: the presiding judi- terial to be conveyed to the courtroom or from c. BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE cial oicer should be provided with an overview the courtroom to the remote space, to that it • Cabling: As a minimum, consideraion should of the remote space that provides a complete is visible and audible to those in the courtroom be given to providing cabled services at the fol- view the room, so that they can see all persons and to the remote paricipant. lowing locaions: in it, including any support person/s and court - Remote Paricipant Posiion: loorbox oicers. This image is ideally provided via a • Journey to Court: The change of locaion for or wall plate adjacent to desk to include power, separate screen to the judicial bench. the remote paricipant means that the spaial data, telephone (including privacy intercom for experience of their journey to court will be very use during videoconferences), laptop AV input, • Clear disincion evident to remote parici- diferent than had they appeared in-person. document camera input, microphone input if pants between being “in court” and “out of Future technologies: With advances in the devel- desk mounted (allowing a second input for in- court”: this may be achieved by a signal to opment of immersive, virtual reality technolo- terpreter, if required), conidence monitor video indicate that the space is ‘live’ to the courtroom. gies, it could be possible in the future to design output. This signal should be as unobtrusive as possi- a ‘virtual’ journey to court that recreates some- - Front Wall: wall plate at an appropri- ble, to be noted to the paricipant so that they thing of the spaial experience of a court par- ate height to include power, data (for control), are aware of it, and able to be turned of by the icipant as they enter a court building, proceed camera(s) video input, display(s) output, loud- remote paricipant (or support person) should to the courtroom, and enter that courtroom to speaker output or audio output. Consider they so desire. take their designated place, such as the witness ibre provisions if long cable runs are required stand. While a virtual reality experience may not between camera and displays back to a central • Document cameras and audio-visual demon- be desirable for some remote paricipants, for equipment rack. straive aids: Document cameras and a con- example the vulnerable child witness or vicim - Ceiling: camera input for (for judicial

appendix b: guidelines for the design and construction of remote court facilities and videolinked courtrooms 109 oice overview), microphone input. ity to conference muliple locaions simultane- • Management and Network Control: Manage- The decision to implement specialist AV cabling ously (thus a four remote site conference at 1Mb ment and network control is essenial for super- or structured cabling (UTP, ibre) is important per site will require a minimum of 4Mb into the vision and fault inding on the videoconferencing and must be made with due regard to cable codec). Network topologies supporing this network. The network control is important for lengths, speciic equipment requirements, pro- capability include uilising an internal bridge and bandwidth management and user authenica- curement methodology, installaion sequencing hosing muliparty conferences in the cloud. The ion, as well as implemening a uniied dial plan. and support of future upgrades. Cabling infra- appropriate remote facility soluion will depend It also provides managers with the ability to structure should support digital video formats. on factors such as cost, security and size of con- monitor network and system performance and ferences. uilisaion. • Structural Loads: Remote facility pariion walls should be designed with regard to front Legacy systems uilise ISDN as the network. • Firewall Traversal: Due to the nature of re- wall equipment (displays, cameras and loud- Rather than provide separate network access via mote witness conferencing, the courts network speakers) as well as other wall mounted furni- ISDN to each individual remote facility codec, will need to be provisioned to allow remote ture such as sound absorbing wall panels. consideraion should be given to providing a access to the network. This is achieved through centrally located Gateway. The Gateway can be Firewall Traversal. Each of the major videocon- d. NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE implemented as a standalone device. ferencing vendors has soluions that will allow The network design must consider the following: users from outside the network to call directly • Sotware Clients and BYOD: Currently, many to systems on the internal network. Care is • Faciliies: The wide availability of opions for a vendors ofer sotware clients that allow smart required to ensure appropriate security policies basic point to point videoconferencing codec (or phones, tablets and portable computers to par- are in place. even two parallel codecs, as currently required icipate in a conference (Bring Your Own Device, by some jurisdicions) mean that bandwidth or BYOD). Whilst standard network security • The Future: Videoconferencing standards and requirements for each remote facility can vary pracices can provide for staf connecivity, there capabiliies will coninue to evolve. The change considerably. Opions are available to extend the are potenial issues over external client access to IPV6 will mandate diferent dial pracices, video resoluion from basic 720p up to 1080p. that will need to be carefully considered. such as URI dialling. Current technologies such Other relevant extensions may include the abil- as H.323 and SIP will coninue to evolve, and

110 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings newer video scaling technologies, such as H.264 • Room Depth: The depth of the room should be of the remote space should be, at least, slightly SVC will provide alternaives to the mainstream suicient to allow enough space for the remote higher than the convenional 2.7m of many videoconferencing technologies. Considerable paricipant to be seated away from the videolink interiors. For some remote paricipants, more care must be exercised when evaluaing diferent equipment in order to allow transmission of so than others, it may be important to evoke technologies to ensure that systems being imple- the upper torso, gesiculaion etc. Ideally the the out-of-the-everyday proporions of the civic mented are FULLY compaible with both internal remote paricipant would have a piece of furni- space of the courtroom so as not to create con- and client systems. ture (a desk or a witness box-like arrangement) licing nonverbal environmental cues. in between them and the videolink equipment (or future remote paricipaion technology). We • Furniture and Loose Fiings: The room must e. REMOTE SPACE DESIGN recommend a minimum room depth of 3.5m (al- accommodate, at minimum, the videolink equip- • Room Width: The width of the room should lowing a modest 0.3m for the equipment at one ment (preferably integrated into the room walls/ be suicient to allow the remote paricipant to end, 1.5m between the surface of the screen ceiling and/or joinery unit). The furniture for the allow comfortable movement around the chair and the eyes of the paricipant, and a further 1m remote paricipant should be separate from the and desk. We recommend a minimum of 3.5m for the paricipant and 1.2m between the par- technology and should include at minimum two total room width. Tesing should be done with icipant’s chair and the back of the room behind comfortable, height-adjustable and non-swivel- the chosen technologies to ensure that the them). More immersive systems such as DVE’s ling chairs; a table with a modesty panel to the width of the room allows for the comfortable system require more depth for the equipment front, that is deep enough for notes and evi- distance of the remote paricipant away from (up to 1m) and a longer distance (opimum 2.5m dence and wide enough to comfortably accom- the videolink technology, as well as allowing between the paricipant’s eyes and the surface modate a document camera or laptop to one the placement of a chair nearby, and of-screen, of the image from the courtroom). See igure B3 side. A movable table (preferably with a modesty for a remote court oicer or support person. on following page. panel in front) that sits between the remote par- If someone is siing of the side, there needs icipant and the screen will allow them to adjust to be adequate space to allow for them to be • Room Volume: The volume of the room is im- the distance they are from the camera to be of-screen (although sill visible to the presiding portant, paricularly regarding the loor to ceiling comfortable for their needs, and allows a sense judicial oicer via their overview of the room). height. Where possible, paricularly for smaller of separaion from the technology itself. The sized rooms in width or depth, the ceiling height table should be deep enough for the placement

appendix b: guidelines for the design and construction of remote court facilities and videolinked courtrooms 111 of evidence (such as a A4 ring-binder folder).

• Ambience: The ambience of the remote room should be designed to convey respect for the remote paricipant and for the proceedings. Ma- terials, inishes and designs that are congruent with the courtroom to which the room is linked are ideal, although an exact match will rarely be possible. Finishes that have low gloss surface treatments are desirable to assist in reducing glare. For some remote paricipants, for example, child witnesses and vicims of sexual assault, it is also be important to soten the design of the space that is in the visual cone of the seated remote paricipant. This can be achieved through features that are more welcoming or conducive to promoing a greater sense of well-being, for example, a paining or a pot-plant.

• Ariicial Lighing: The remote facility should provide a lighing scheme that supports efecive visual communicaion in an environment that is visually comfortable and free from distracion. Videoconferencing demands that the lighing system design ensures cameras can capture the Figure B3: Diagram showing layout of remote paricipant’s chair and support person’s chair and table in subtlety of facial features or expressions that are relaion to technology and ‘cone of vision’ of the camera (© Emma Rowden).

112 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings so important in creaing naturalness of commu- DESIGN CRITERIA FOR LIGHTING nicaion between remote paricipants. Lighing SUGGESTED BY ICE DESIGN may also serve to create the desired ambience in the room or to demarcate the threshold be- Light levels tween waiing areas and the “court”. Verical Illuminance: minimum 300 lux (at head height towards camera; to be increased if natural daylight is not properly controlled). Whether lighing for videoconferencing purposes is incorporated into the base room lighing Frontal ixture posiions : 35º to 45º elevaion above the parici- scheme or designed as separate dedicated sup- pant 45º to the let/right of paricipant. plementary lighing circuits, the luminaires must be carefully selected, posiioned and orientated Back Light ixture: 60º to 75º behind the subject’s head (see to ensure each paricipant’s face and torso are igure opposite). opimally lit, free from shadowing and discolouraion. In addiion to achieving minimum Colour Temperature illuminance levels on room inishes and the Use >5600K for rooms with controlled daylight. Must be consist- paricipant, luminaires should be posiioned to ent across all iings. create modelling or three-dimensionality across Consider varying frontal iings with diferent intensiies to cre- the face. Heavy shadowing (paricularly around ate a key & ill efect across the face to enhance modelling. By the eyes) caused from overhead light sources introducing the backlight a ‘halo’ efect is created which helps Backlight must be avoided. create depth and contrast of the paricipant from the background. Circuits should be dimmable to assist in inal opimisa- The adjacent design criteria and guidance pro- ion. vides a staring point for the planning of video conference lighing for new or refurbished remote faciliies. The services of a qualiied lighting designer should be sought to interpret the

appendix b: guidelines for the design and construction of remote court facilities and videolinked courtrooms 113 design criteria according to the speciic demands ions and the electroacousic capture and repro- of each project. ducion of natural sounding, highly intelligible speech. The environment must be free from • Background plane - colour / texture / mate- distracion caused by extraneous sound sources rial: The backdrop of the remote paricipant (see and internal ambient noise levels. ‘what the courtroom sees’ in Figure B4) should be chosen to best depict details of face of all skin Sound insulaion of the room envelope (pari- tones (facial features of darker skin tones can ions, doors, ceilings and juncions) must be be paricularly problemaic in this regard, and rated to achieve high privacy or conideniality. certain shades of pale blue are considered beter The required raings for the construcions will be than other tones for achieving this kind of facial dependent on the ambient noise levels in adja- deiniion. Further experimentaion with colour, cent potenial eavesdropper locaions. texture and paterning may be required once videolink is operaional to achieve opimum The room acousic objecives are to achieve a background to accommodate a broad range of high level of speech intelligibility and to preserve skin tones (from darkest to lightest). the natural qualiies of a speaker’s ampliied voice. Various treatments should be applied or • Integraion: Where possible, the equipment integrated into wall, loor and ceiling inishes should be integrated with the built environment to control early sound relecions and the re- (in the wall, or in purpose-built cabinetry that verberaion ime1 in the space. The rear wall relects the design of the surrounding space). behind the paricipant should always be acousi- Movable trolleys should be avoided. Cabling cally absorpive – as this wall forms the backdrop should be hidden. Figure B4: The remote space as being “two rooms in 1 Reverberaion Time (RT) – a key design parameter one.” (© Emma Rowden). • Acousics: The remote facility should be used by acousic engineers, this represents the ime taken for a sound in a room to decay by 60dB ater the sound designed to support efortless listening condi- source is turned of.

114 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings for the camera, its appearance must be carefully DESIGN CRITERIA FOR ACOUSTICS Registers should be located away from potenial considered. Building services noise must also be SUGGESTED BY ICE DESIGN ceiling mounted microphone posiions. appropriately controlled to achieve comfortable Room Acousics Sound Insulaion listening condiions for paricipants and reliable, Reverberaion Time 0.3 to 0.5 seconds across all frequencies External Noise Control noise-free pick-up of speech by the microphone. (dependent on room size; a small rise at low fre- Noise ingress from occupaional noise in the quencies is usually acceptable: < 25% increase at building or external noise source (eg road traic): Refer to side panel for technical design param- 250Hz octave band) Leq < 30dBA (internal sources) eters. The design criteria and guidance adjacent The use of ariculated and/or angular surfaces L10 < 35dBA (road traic). provides a staring point for the planning of new and structures in the room is encouraged as this or refurbished remote faciliies. The services of will provide beneicial acousic difusion in the Sound Level Diference a qualiied acousic engineer should be sought space. Minimum level diference to achieve high privacy Carpeted loor inishes are recommended. Con- to interpret the design criteria according to the between adjacent spaces: sider acousically absorpive ceilings (ensuring speciic demands of each project. D 50 - Remote Witness Room to corridor* sound insulaion to adjacent spaces is not com- w Dw55 - Remote Room to Remote Room • Natural light and views: The remote space promised). Deep porous sound absorpion (fabric covered acousic wall panels) should be applied (* assumes corridor with ambient noise should have access to natural light and views of to the rear wall and on one of any pair of parallel level of 40dBA). nature (or the urban landscape beyond) that are and opposing walls (to avoid luter echoes). visible to the remote paricipant (remote room For planning purposes, an overall pariion width a), paricularly if the space is small. Any windows Building Services Noise Levels of 150mm should be reserved to accommodate or false windows need a variety of diferent Saisfactory internal design sound level for air staggered stud pariion coniguraions or lined blind and opacity opions in order to maximise condiioning:

appendix b: guidelines for the design and construction of remote court facilities and videolinked courtrooms 115 ions should be designed in conjuncion with the companying them. An outdoor area for smokers electric lighing scheme using the services of a should be available. Waiing areas themselves qualiied lighing engineer to opimise comfort, should have comfortable seaing with some ac- diminish glare on the screen and avoid direct cess to views and natural light. sunlight falling onto paricipants or room surfaces within the ield of view of the camera. • Ariculaing the threshold: the symbolism of the threshold, and how that is crossed, needs • Waiing area: The remote space should ideally careful consideraion and, potenially, exag- be connected to a comfortable waiing area with geraion. Architects need to consider how the access to natural light and comfortable seaing ritual of the journey to court, and the crossing of and (secure where relevant) access to ameni- out-of-court to in-court might be achieved in a ies such as bathrooms, tea bench (at minimum new way in the remote space. (For some remote access to drinking water), and outdoor (perhaps paricipants, this might be achieved through smoking) area. The needs of remote paricipants new forms of immersive virtual-reality technolo- waiing for their court appearance will vary to gies; for others, it may be more appropriate to some extent depending on their category of achieve this with architectural cues). See Figure paricipaion and their role (remote defendant, B5. witness, vulnerable witness, expert witness). All remote paricipants should have access to a waiing area that includes appropriate ameniies. In the case of child and other vulnerable witness areas, the waiing area will need to be secure, with a separate, secure entrance. Access to other ameniies, such as food preparaion areas and children’s play areas should be provided Figure B5: Strategies for ariculaing the threshold. for child witnesses, and family members ac- (© Emma Rowden).

116 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings 2. Minimum standards for court- a. AUDIO SYSTEM correctly designed courtroom acousic together rooms that can host a videolinked con- • Loudspeaker System: The courtroom loud- with a carefully engineered loudspeaker system necion speaker system must primarily provide rein- will provide ive key beneits, a: forcement of the voices of judges, counsel and - high degree of speech intelligibility; witness plus the audio from a video conference - high degree of naturalness in the Our research revealed a wide variaion in the or teleconference to all paries within the court- tonality of speech to be delivered to all supporing infrastructure for videolinks in courtroom. In addiion to these the system will also listeners; rooms, both in terms of capacity and conigura- provide for playback of the audio from the court - high degree of ampliicaion before feed ion. While variaions in individual courtroom recording and possibly from electronic evidence. back; design across diferent jurisdicions will obvious- The most appropriate selecion and conigu- - good matching of visual and aural cues ly inluence some aspects of the coniguraion of raion of loudspeakers will vary considerably for talkers (source localisaion); and, the technology, the following secion sets some between courtrooms, depending on their size, - high degree of acousic comfort and performaive standards. shape, layout, room acousic performance (or efortless listening condiions. lack of) and the general architectural intent. The overriding goal of the in-court technology is Pracical guidance is therefore beyond the scope With speciic reference to remote witness vid- to support efortless communicaion, both in au- of this paricular document; the services of a eolinks, a supplementary loudspeaker should be ral and visual domains, so court occupants and professional acousician should be sought to placed as close as possible to the video display in remote paricipants are free to concentrate on establish appropriate design criteria and gener- order to provide an aural cue (or source localisa- the subject mater rather than on discerning the ate designs according to the speciic demands of ion) of the remote witness’s voice back to their spoken word and visual communicaion of the each project. image, resuling in a more natural communica- other party. It is paricularly important to note ion experience for courtroom paricipants. This that an absence of complaints from an exising The performance of the audio and loudspeaker loudspeaker would operate in conjuncion with facility does not necessarily imply that there are system will ulimately be judged on the degree the larger courtroom speech reinforcement no diiculies with speech intelligibility or visual of intelligibility delivered, its sound quality and system. issues. the ease of use of the system. By applying a holisiic approach to the design of the courtroom, a

appendix b: guidelines for the design and construction of remote court facilities and videolinked courtrooms 117 • Microphones: In general, microphones should during a videolink or refer to notes). The exact gain in the loudspeaker system before the onset be placed as close to the speaking posiion of posiion of its mouning posiion should allow of acousic feedback. each paricipant as possible (and away from suicient space for the posiioning of books and noise sources such as air condiioning, fan driven papers between the speaker and the micro- • Audio Signal Processing: Every courtroom AV equipment etc) to maximise the raio of phone whilst minimising noise disturbance from audio system must incorporate a dedicated useful direct speech to detrimental room rever- paper documents and keyboards. The micro- audio digital signal processor (DSP) to enable berance and background noise. Microphones phone mount must provide good vibraion isola- full equalisaion and alignment of each audio should be discrete to ensure the technology ion to minimise the transfer of ‘bumps’ from input and output chain in the remote facility. does not present an unnecessary visual distrac- the desk into the microphone. Efecive, independent and adapive DSP based ion or otherwise inhibit paricipants behaving acousic echo cancellaion (AEC) shall be em- in a natural manner when communicaing in the Low proile boundary microphone: ployed on each and every microphone input courtroom or over a videolink. The use of low proile boundary microphones on to reduce echo and feedback during video and top of the table is generally discouraged as they teleconferenced hearings. AEC processing must Two generic types of microphone are commonly are paricularly sensiive to bumps to the desk be installed in both court and remote sites to encountered in a courtroom: and noise generated by documents being passed reduce echo back into respecive locaions. The over the table surface. Furthermore, due to microphone gaing (or automaic selecion of the Gooseneck microphone: their low proile, there is a tendency for papers microphone being spoken into) is a vital compo- A desk-mounted gooseneck microphone pro- to be placed over microphones rendering them nent in achieving clear reliable transmission of vides the most robust pickup characterisics if inefecive. Both noise sources issues can cause speech. posiioned correctly in front of each potenial signiicant interference to transmited speech speaking posiion. The selected pickup pat- signals without the remote paricipant even be- • Transcript and Recording Systems: It should tern and mouning posiion need to be carefully ing aware. be anicipated that all courtroom telephone and reviewed paricularly if speaking posiions may videoconferences will need to be recorded for vary during proceedings (e.g. counsel re-orien- In courtrooms, overhead microphones are gen- transcripion purposes. Transcripion recordings taing or wandering from the lectern posiion erally inappropriate as the relaively large dis- may be a single, two, four, eight or more channel to address the jury, face a remote paricipant tances to speaker posiions limit the achievable coniguraion per courtroom, allowing confer-

118 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings ence audio to be provided with a dedicated and the demands of each hearing type require would be provided for each courtroom for the channel. the primary funcion, locaion and size of each purposes of presening each type of remote display to be carefully considered with respect to paricipant (ie. one dedicated for remote wit- Generally, the audio system design for sound reviewing distances and of-axis angles when more ness, remote defendant, the remote judge, etc). inforcement will be diferent from that required than one person is expected to view it. Within The display would be sized such that the remote for court transcript. As the transcripion staf do the broader context of remote videolinks, it is paricipant is presented at the same size (‘life not have the beneit of videoconidence moni- important to disinguish diferent requirements size’) as if appearing in person. For remote wit- toring it is normal to ensure there is an acive for a display that is primarily for presening a re- ness videolinks, the display should be located audio feed at all imes (this is not normal prac- mote paricipant via videoconference from one next to or behind the witness box, to maintain ice within the sound reinforcement system). intended for the display of electronic evidence. familiar sightlines for the court The single dis- Signal processing, such as limiing and compres- Based on current best pracice, the video system play ensures those engaged in the videolink look sion needs to be designed for the recording infrastructure should be designed to support towards the correct display and its co-located system. Signal levels from all local and remote resoluions of up to 1080 lines. High deiniion camera(s). sources need to be balanced prior to mixing to cameras of at least 720 lines should be chosen. ensure that one sound source does not override Each videoconference display should be accom- another. • Small Format Displays: For scruiny of elec- panied by a dedicated, localised loudspeaker tronic evidence sources, individual displays for remote audio reproducion (refer to Audio c. VIDEO SYSTEM should be provided for the bench, bar, witness System above). The in-court video system must readily support and dock, as a minimum. These displays should the distribuion of electronic evidence from not be used to display the main camera image Pracical and inancial pressures usually dictate sources located in the courtroom (e.g. prosecu- of a remote paricipant during videolinks. (The that the videoconferencing display will also be ion laptop) or a remote site (e.g. expert witness) bench display may be used to view a wide angle used to present electronic evidence to court- as well as remote paricipant camera images to shot of the remote witness room). room, oten as the main display for the jury and one or more displays throughout the courtroom. public. However, good viewing condiions for Apart from the procedural variances between ju- • Videoconferencing Display for Remote Parici- detailed electronic evidence (where the maxi- risdicions, the physical layout of the courtroom pant: Ideally one dedicated large format screen mum viewing distance should be no more than

appendix b: guidelines for the design and construction of remote court facilities and videolinked courtrooms 119 6 to 8 imes the image height), oten dictate that This should be arranged in preference to the size 2. REMOTE EXPERT WITNESS: (in order) a the display be oversized, thereby compromising of the paricipant being reduced to allow for a ‘close up’ of the judge, a wide-angle camera shot a more natural visual communicaion with ‘life split screen (see ‘life size proporions on p120). of the whole courtroom, a wide-angle view of sized’ remote witnesses during videoconferenc- the public gallery, inishing on a wide-angle view ing. Consider alternaive displays for jury and • Camera: Cameras must always be co-located of the jury (in a jury case), and a closer view of public where sight lines and oblique angles in with the display that corresponds to the image the lawyers. the courtroom make it diicult for both the jury of the far end paricipant in the courtroom. The 3. REMOTE VULNERABLE / CHILD WITNESS: and the public to view the display comfortably. camera must be placed as close to the locaion a ‘close up’ of the judge and lawyers only (unless The posiion and mouning height of the display of the eyes of the remote paricipant onscreen directed otherwise by the court). should ensure clear and ergonomically comfort- as possible in order to replicate eye-contact. 4. REMOTE JUDGE: the judge should at all able sightlines for all viewing posiions, as well Pracical limitaions dictate that the camera is imes, whether they are based in the courtroom as approximate the posiion of the paricipant’s usually best posiioned immediately below the or in the remote space have full view of the normal physical locaion in the courtroom. display. other end of the link and the capacity to access a close up view of any part of the courtroom, High-deiniion, professional grade screens • Preset Camera Posiions: should be created including the lawyers, the public gallery, the jury, supporing muliple signal formats up to 1080p to provide a series of orientaion shots to ac- the dock and the witness stand (either by way resoluions are required to achieve a suiciently company an introducion to the court for the of an overview shot in a CCTV arrangement, or detailed image of far end paricipants to achieve remote paricipant conducted by the judge. by seing up a secondary camera in the remote a convincing ‘telepresence’ experience for all These should be tailored for the type of remote space when videoconferencing). paries involved. A low relecivity inish is paricipant, for example: 5. REMOTE PUBLIC GALLERY: members of preferred to reduce distracing relecions from 1. REMOTE LAY WITNESS / REMOTE DE- the public paricipaing remotely should have courtroom lighing. FENDANT: (in order) a ‘close up’ of the judge , a access to a full overview view of the courtroom wide-angle camera shot of the whole courtroom, including the lawyers, the public gallery, the • Addiional Displays: For muliple witnesses a wide-angle view of the jury (in a jury case), a jury, the dock and the witness stand, and also a (e.g. two remote experts giving evidence concur- wide-angle view of the public gallery, inishing view of any other courtroom paricipant appear- rently) an addiional screen might be required. on ‘close up’ view of the judge and lawyers. ing remotely. This might be provided through

120 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings a number of muliple views, rather than one guidance. Cabling infrastructure should support considered as the size and locaion of the equip- single image, depending on the coniguraion of digital video formats. ment can be quite speciic and may inluence the courtroom and the technical capacity of the the room layout and design. Cabling should be equipment. • Structural Loads: Walls should be designed hidden. Where the courtroom might be used with regard to mouning equipment (displays, for a number of diferent types of proceedings, • Life-size Proporions: cameras and displays cameras and loudspeakers) as well as other wall and with diferent types of remote paricipants, should be placed to pick up any speaker in a mounted furniture such as sound absorbing wall more lexible arrangements should be encour- front-on direcion, rather than capturing their panels. aged where the image and sound of the remote image at an oblique angle or side-on. The speak- paricipant can ideally be placed where all can er should appear the same size (‘life size’) as • Network Bandwidth: This document does not see them, and from where they would normally they would if they were appearing in person. extend to speciicaions for networks. However, appear (for instance, behind the judicial bench as a general principle, networks provided for and in front of the coat of arms for the remote • Judge Overview Display: The judge will re- videoconferencing purposes should be designed judge). Regardless, the manner in which the quire two views - one of the overall view of the to support the highest bandwidth capability of videolink equipment is presented to courtroom remote paricipant, and the front-on view of the the videoconferencing codec, even if inal con- paricipants should relect the dignity of pro- remote paricipant (which is also the main image necion speeds are iniially limited by WAN or ceedings and not diminish the respecful ambi- fed to the rest of the courtroom). There needs internet bandwidths. Note that some jurisdic- ence of the courtroom environment. to be a consistent policy for the corresponding ions already require the provision of two paral- courtroom video system designs to match the lel codecs to achieve three or more video feeds • Ariicial Lighing: The courtroom lighing remote paricipant audio-visual feeds. in one direcion. design in a courtroom has several funcions to fulil. In addiion to achieving the funcional requirements for a well lit working plane on which c. INFRASTRUCTURE d. COURTROOM DESIGN to read documents, the lighing scheme must • Cabling: As a minimum, consideraion should • Integraion and Ambience: The coordinaion support efecive visual communicaion between be given to providing cabled services, in ac- and integraion of the videolink equipment with occupants in an environment that is visually cordance with relevant jurisdicions’ design the courtroom architecture should be carefully comfortable and free from distracion. Lighing

appendix b: guidelines for the design and construction of remote court facilities and videolinked courtrooms 121 will also serve to create a desired ambience in • Acousics: The courtroom must be designed Sound insulaion of the room envelope (pari- the room or to enhance architectural features. to support efortless listening condiions and ions, doors, ceilings and juncions) must be However videoconferencing perhaps places the the reliable capture and reproducion of natural rated to achieve high privacy and protecion most onerous demands on the lighing system sounding, highly intelligible speech. Irrespec- from intrusive noise from adjacent spaces. It to ensure cameras are able to capture the subtle ive of the quality or extent of in-court sound is important to remain mindful that someimes facial features that are so important in creaing ampliicaion, the room acousic design must courtroom doors will remain open when court naturalness of communicaion between remote support the clear intelligible exchange of speech is siing; road traic noise ingress and general paricipants. between judge, counsel and witness plus any re- public occupaional noise control immediately mote paricipants appearing via videoconference outside the court space may also need to be ap- Whether lighing for videoconferencing pur- or teleconference. The environment must also propriately controlled. poses is incorporated into the base room lighing be free from distracion caused by extraneous scheme or designed as separate dedicated sup- sound sources and internal ambient noise levels. Room Acousic Treatment: The room acousic plementary lighing circuits, the luminaires must objecives are to achieve a high level of speech be carefully selected, posiioned and orientated The most appropriate selecion and conigura- intelligibility and to preserve the natural quali- to ensure that the face and torso of each court- ion of room construcions and inishes will vary ies of a speaker’s voice, paricularly when am- room paricipant (judge/magistrate, counsel, considerably between courtrooms, depending pliied during a videolink. These objecives are witness) is opimally lit, free from shadowing on their size, shape, layout, quality of electroa- achieved by selecing the correct combinaion and discolouraion. In addiion to achieving min- cousics system and the general architectural and quanity of sound absorpive and relecive imum illuminance levels on room inishes and intent for the room. Pracical guidance is there- room inishes to achieve the correct reverbera- the paricipant, luminaires should be posiioned fore beyond the scope of this paricular docu- ion ime and appropriately locaing the treat- to create modelling or three-dimensionality ment; the services of a professional acousician ments to reduce the strength of detrimental late across the face. Heavy shadowing (paricularly should be sought to establish appropriate design sound relecions that would potenially mask around the eyes) caused from overhead light criteria and generate designs according to the the beneicial early sound relecions. sources must be avoided. speciic demands of each project. Building services noise must also be appropriately controlled to achieve comfortable listening

122 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings condiions for paricipants and reliable, noise- their clients who have appeared remotely in so that it is possible for them to access the facil- free pick-up of speech by the microphone. order to debrief directly ater a case, and to ity on exiing the court and see if their client take instrucions prior to court - a process that wishes to speak with them on the link. • Natural Light and Views: The courtroom normally happens when the person appears in should have access to natural light and views of person. For example, we found in one prison As a general pracice, each court that is regu- nature (or the urban landscape beyond) that are that it was the non-legally trained prison oicer larly used for bail or remand hearings should visible to courtroom paricipants, paricularly if who was let to do the immediate follow-up with have at least one such space dedicated to use by the space is small proporionate to the number the defendant regarding what happened in their lawyers. Advances in mobile compuing tech- of people in the courtroom. Any windows or case (an onerous task that they are not directly nologies may, in the future, make it possible for false windows need a variety of diferent blind qualiied to perform). lawyers to conduct such interviews using other and opacity opions in order to maximise the tools, such as tablets or mobile phones. Howev- ability to control glare on the video screens with- • Locaion within the courthouse: such spaces er, prisoners’ access to those connecions from out having to sacriice the ability to look outside should have easy access for lawyers from the correcional faciliies will sill need to be control- or gain access to natural light altogether. Ac- public area via a secure entrance, to ensure led. cess and direcion of natural lighing should be lawyer-client privacy and protect the equipment. designed in conjuncion with the electric lighing In the short-term, to address security concerns Such addiional remote faciliies in courthouses, scheme using the services of a qualiied lighing by lawyers, this facility should have a dedicated police staions and prisons that are used to link engineer to opimise comfort and diminish glare CODEC. Prisoners should be rouinely moved to to court on an increasingly regular basis should on the screen. a similar facility at the prison that is made avail- designed in accordance with the guidance as able for this purpose; with the prisoner advised outlined in this appendix. e. ADDITION OF MULTIPURPOSE REMOTE at the conclusion of each link that they should SPACE FOR FOLLOW-UP VIDEOLINKS indicate to the prison oicer staing that facil- During our research, a need was ideniied for ity that they require an ater-court brieing from a videoconferencing room (which could double their lawyer. While it may be logisically diicult as a secure interview room) within the court- for lawyers to book the courthouse facility for house to enable a space for lawyers to access consultaions, the facility should be posiioned

appendix b: guidelines for the design and construction of remote court facilities and videolinked courtrooms 123 appendix c: guidelines for selecing mulipurpose remote spaces for court appearances

This guide is intended to assist in the selecion alternaive uses to the opimum arrangement of appropriate remote spaces that are not in the determined for videoconferencing to a court. direct control of the Department. This may be established through a checklist to ensure that the coniguraion of the space is A Central Registry of Ministry/Department ap- opimal to the videolinked court encounter. proved remote spaces that are linked to court on an occasional basis should be established Portable systems (ie. equipment on a trolley) are and maintained (see recommendaions made in generally discouraged as they risk introducing “Prior” secion 5.1.1 of this document). several changes to the room environment set-up and interacion that could jeapordise performa- Remote spaces should be selected to meet the ive standards. The regular movement and dis- requirements described in Appendix B (for a connecion of the equipement creates a higher dedicated space), while providing for any lex- risk of damage, and makes condiions less likely ibility necessary to accommodate other compli- to remain consistent across videolink sessions. mentary uses other than videoconferencing to a If a portable system is used, there should be court. For example, in a police forensics facility, clear guidelines or means to repeat the set-up to a videoconference suite might also be used for create reproducable condiions once opimum meeings, videoconferences or other aciviies. condiions have been determined. Staf oversee- However, it is vitally important that the room ing the facility should be made responsible to can be returned to the opimum layout and ar- ensure these performaive standards are met. rangement for a remote court appearance, with no extraneous or distracing features. b. SECURITY All mainstream video conferencing systems in- a. GENERAL herently incorporate encrypion to ensure com- Staf at the remote site should be trained to en- municaion is conidenial between conference sure that the space is always reconigured ater sites even when transmited across internet and

124 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings other public networks. Therefore, there are no d. PREFERRED REMOTE SPACE ATTRIBUTES • Furniture and Loose Fiings: The furniture speciic network security provisions required • Room Width: The width of the room should provided for the remote paricipant should ide- to maintain a secure link between an external be suicient to allow the remote paricipant to ally be separate from the technology and should mulipurpose remote space and the courtroom. move comfortably around the chair and desk. include at minimum two comfortable (preferably However, network security in the corporate Tesing should be done with the chosen tech- height-adjustable and non-swivelling) chairs; a environment is criical to protect other assets nologies to ensure that the width of the room al- table (ideally with a modesty panel to the front), that are vulnerable to atack through irewalls. It lows for the comfortable distance of the remote that is deep enough for notes and evidence is necessary to ensure appropriate video irewall paricipant away from the videolink technology, and wide enough to comfortably accommodate traversal products are incorporated into network as well as allowing the placement of a chair a document camera or laptop to one side, if design. nearby, and of-screen, for a support person. If required. someone is siing of the side, there needs to be b. AUDIO SYSTEM adequate room to allow them to be of-screen • Ambience: The ambience of the remote room As per Appendix B. (although sill visible to the presiding judicial of- should convey respect for the remote parici- icer). pant and for the proceedings, through its choice Addiional notes: Ideally the space would be of ixtures, iings, furnishings and textures. quiet, with low ambient noise levels, good or • Room Depth: Ensure that the depth of the Otherwise, a space that is ‘neutral’, and free of moderate acousic control and free from intru- chosen room allows for the comfortable distance distracions, is to be preferred. sive noise from external environment or internal of the remote paricipant away from the video- occupied areas. conferencing equipment (depending on posiion • Ariicial Lighing: Ideally lighing should and focal length of the camera, this could equate provide an even wash of light across the face c. VIDEO SYSTEM to approximately 1.5m – 2.5m between front of to avoid shadowing over the face, paricularly As per Appendix B. screen to front of remote paricipant’s face). Ide- around the eyes. Addiional lighing may need ally the remote paricipant would have a sepa- to be introduced to the room (e.g. lamps that rate piece of furniture (such as a desk, preferably throw light onto the paricipant’s face without with a modesty panel at the front) in between causing too much glare) to create opimum light- them and the videolink equipment. ing for the camera, and should be posiioned to

appendix c: guidelines for selecting multipurpose remote spaces for court appearances 125 avoid glare onscreen or visual discomfort for the • Integraion: Where possible, the equipment case of child and other vulnerable witness areas, remote paricipant. should be integrated with the built environment the waiing area will need to be secure, with a (in the wall, or in purpose-built cabinetry that separate, secure entrance provided. An outdoor • Background plane colour/texture/material: relects the design of the surrounding space). area for smokers could be made available. Wait- The backdrop to the remote paricipant (‘what Movable trolleys should be avoided. Cabling ing areas should have comfortable seaing with the courtroom sees’ in Figure B4, p114) may should be hidden. some access to views and natural light. need to be adjusted depending on the previous use of the room. It should be of a colour and tex- • Natural light and views: The remote space ture to best depict facial details in all skin tones and adjacent waiing areas should ideally have (facial features of darker skin tones can be par- access to natural light and views of nature (or icularly problemaic in this regard, and certain the urban landscape beyond) that are visible to shades of pale blue are considered beter than the remote paricipant, paricularly if the space other colour hues for achieving this kind of facial is small. Try and select spaces with windows that deiniion). Ideally a backdrop that is congruent have some capacity to vary light intensity - such with the design of the courtroom to which the as blinds - to maximise the ability to control for remote space is to be linked will be referred. glare without having to sacriice the ability to look outside or gain access to natural light alto- For this purpose, courts might provide a move- gether. able backdrop in such a design to those mulipurpose spaces that are regularly used on • Waiing Spaces: the remote space should a more regular basis to link to courts. Careful ideally be connected to a comfortable waiing atenion should be paid by the remote parici- area with access to natural light and comfortable pant on arrival, and the image of the paricipant seaing. Easy access to drinking water and a toi- should be checked by way of a self-view (see let on site should be mandatory. Remote parici- below). At minimum the backdrop to the paricipants should be oriented to these faciliies when pant should be free of distracions. they arrive prior to their appearance. In the

126 Gateways to Jusice: design and operaional guidelines for remote paricipaion in court proceedings appendix d: suggested proforma for collecing data on videolink use

Date Method Case Type Proceeding: Duration Remote site Remote ☐ Videoconference/videolink ☐ Civil ☐ Remand ☐ Prison participant ☐ CCTV ☐ Criminal ☐ Bail application ☐ Child/vulnerable ☐ Defendant ☐ Telephone ☐ Committal witness facility ☐ Witness ☐ Computer e.g. Skype ☐ Pre‐trial ☐ Forensic facility ☐ Judge/Magistrate ☐ Other . . . . hearing/status ☐ Court ☐ Lawyer conference etc. ☐ Other . . . . ☐ Interpreter ☐ Hearing/trial ☐ Other . . . . . ☐ Sentence Location where the link ☐ Appeal Name of Remote was initiated **: ☐ Other . . . . Site **:

Our research indicates that courts could beneit from more consistent standards of record-keeping about the use of videolink technologies (videoconferencing, CCTV and any other forms of audio or audio-visual communicaions) to beter inform how to best allocate resources, to pinpoint areas where the use of these technologies might be increased, or more efecively deployed and to enable comparisons about the use of audio-visual links generally both within and between jurisdicions.

The following proforma is provided as a staring point. We suggest adaping this proforma to the paricular needs of the court.

** (Note: keep naming convenions consistent for all sites. For example, just puing “Ararat” may indicate Ararat Prison, or Ararat Courthouse, or a business centre in Ararat)

appendix d: suggested proforma for collecting data on videolink use 127