REFORM OF CRIMINAL TRIAL PROCEDURE


Paper 3

Evidentiary Rules and Aids In The Presentation Of Evidence

Robert Cock QC

On those occasions in the future wherededicated court rooms are used for the hearing of cases...IT [InformationTechnology] will come to play an ever more dominant role. With voice recognitiontechnology capturing the proceedings, judges will no longer need to handwrittennotes or type on their own machines but instead may annotate and comment uponthe text as it appears before them...There could be immediate access from thecourt room to all primary and secondary source material, entire document setsmay be made easily accessible in the court with individual pages capable ofpresentation on all participants’ screens, some evidence may be takenremotely by video-linking and computer and video simulations deployed in thepresentation of evidence. Oral evidence might be supplemented by multi-mediatechniques which could take the court graphically through the evidence and legalarguments, while case management systems may be immediately to hand enablingdecisions or directions to be implemented on the spot, with relevantdocumentation directed electronically to all relevant parties and bodies acrossthe justice system.[1]

As futuristic as the above quotation sounds, much of thetechnology described above is either already utilised in a number of Australianjurisdictions[2] or currently in use by manylarge corporations.[3] Accordingly, the issues inrelation to the use of technology in the courtroom can be refined to someextent. The more pertinent questions might be not “can we do it?”[technology availability issues] because in most instances the answer will beyes, but rather, “should we do it?” [fairness and social issues],and “will we be allowed to do it?” [evidentiary issues].

This paper will consider proposals to facilitate the formalproof of factual matters and the use of hearsay documents, the taking ofevidence from remote facilities, and proposals to facilitate jury understandingof evidence presented in a trial through the use of technology. It will alsoaddress some of the advantages and disadvantages of the use of new technology inthe court and it will outline the appropriate use of technology in complextrials. The totality of these technological impacts cannot be in any wayadequately explored in this paper. Many areas must be given cursory attention,others simply cannot be addressed. Technology has the ability to assist in someareas, while raising serious concerns in others. All require seriousconsideration and informed debate, rather than blind denial or, worse still,blind acceptance.

Facilitation of Formal Proof of Factual matters - Use of Hearsay Documents


This paper will concentrate on the proposals to facilitate theformal proof of factual matters, and more particularly hearsay documents in theCommonwealth Evidence Act 1995 and the Evidence Act 1906 (WA).

In Western Australia, the rule against hearsay is governed bythe common law and is subject to a range of highly technical exceptions. Anumber of provisions in the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) are designed tofacilitate the admission of documents into evidence. However the Act, in itscurrent form, has failed to keep up with technological changes, including theincreasing use of documents in electronic form.

The Commonwealth Evidence Act 1995 reformed the commonlaw position relating to the rule against hearsay evidence in general, andhearsay documents in particular. It greatly reduces the formal burden of proofin relation to the admission of businessrecords[4] and evidence produced by process,machines and other devices such as photocopiers andfaxes.[5] It abolishes the original evidence ruleso that copies, transcripts and so on are admissible to prove theircontents.[6] There is no ‘qualifiedperson’ requirement in the Act[7] so that astatement in a document may be admissible to establish a fact or opinion whetherthe statement is by a qualified person or not.

A number of safeguards are also provided, including a processwhere a party may request that a person who made representations in businessrecords be called to give evidence. The party may also request that a personconcerned with the production or maintenance of a document be called. Wherereasonable requests are not complied with, it is open to the court to order thatthe document not be admitted.[8]

These provisions have been examinedelsewhere[9] and so I will not dwell on them,except to say that in its comprehensive review of the criminal and civil justicesystem, the Western Australian Law Reform Commission recommended the adoption ofthe provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) relating to hearsay, and inparticular in relation to documentary evidence. I agree with theCommission’s recommendation.

A Bill[10] currently beforethe Western Australian Parliament will reform the Evidence Act 1906 (WA)so as to facilitate the formal admission of certain documentary evidence byadopting the certain legislative provisions from other Australianjurisdictions.[11] Whilst not going as far asthe Commonwealth Act, it does recognise that the current legislative provisionsare no longer reflective of current technology and business and law enforcementpractices. It will allow the admission of accurate reproductions of originaldocuments,[12] and allow the admission ofbusiness records without the need to call the maker of the record to testifyunless the court orders in its discretion orders that the maker should becalled.[13]

Appropriate use of Technology in Complex Trials


The adverse consequences for the criminal justice system ofsome criminal trials becoming excessively complex are notorious and have beenwell documented.[14] Some of those consequencesinclude a loss of public confidence in the legal system, inordinate delay in thecompletion of such trials and associated financial costs involved, and thedistorting effect that such ‘mega trials’ can have on the operationof the rest of the criminal justice system.

Benefits of Information Technology in Complex Criminal Trials


The potential benefits of the appropriate use of informationtechnology in complex criminal trialsinclude:[15]

Real Time Transcription


Real time transcription is a good example of an existing,readily available and appropriate technology which can provide substantialbenefits, particularly in long or complex trials. Real time transcription is theability of the court reporter to use a computer assisted stenograph machine andhave the testimony of a witness appear on a computer monitor in plain Englishwithin a matter of seconds from the time when the words werespoken.[16] The transcripts can subsequently befed directly into computer applications which will allow them to be indexed,enabling annotations to evidence and searching of evidence. Any interested partyto the criminal trial can have access to real time transcripts.

The vision for court transcription will be an integratedaudiovisual system that will enable courts to be recorded for the purpose ofproducing a transcript without the need to have a recorder operator in thecourtroom. Output from voice recognition software will be fed into the Internetor an Intranet networked computer system so that the parties, judges, jury andthe public can follow the progress of a case. Recent trials in Victoria usingcommercial voice recognition software currently available confirm that thevision is close to being a reality.[17]

Digital Aids in the Presentation of Evidence


The trite saying that “a picture is worth a thousandwords” is never more evident than in courtrooms where trial lawyers havelong used forms of demonstrative evidence such as charts, diagrams and models toaugment the presentation of evidence. Modern imaging systems will now allow thedisplay of sophisticated images or concepts that would have been difficult oreven impossible to depict effectively using more traditional methods. Suchimages may be used for a variety of evidentiary purposes, including meritsevidence, demonstrative evidence and the augmentation of opening and closingarguments.

In outlining the process of compiling 3D computer generatedanimation of evidence and situations, it has been said that:
“The LAN [Local Area Network] in a technology [equipped]court can provide a Litigation Support System (LSS). The LSS will allowadvocates to present their case with the aid of graphics and multimedia.Advocates may be permitted to use the LSS to tender opening statements andwritten submissions in the electronic format. Photographs, video clips and soundclips can be digitised and presented as electronic evidence. The system can alsobe extremely useful to an expert witness to show to the court or jury with muchgreater ease how a particular mechanism or system works or show tests orexperiments which have been conducted. Computers can also be used to simulateevents and even ‘create’ events. Such simulated events andfabricated events can appear as real as if they had been captured by the use ofa camera. These capabilities have been amply demonstrated in any number ofrecent films such as ‘Jurassic Park’ or ‘Forrest Gump’.In the court environment, one of the obvious forensic uses of such technology isto re-create a factual scene. There is the inherent danger that such types ofelectronic evidence may, whether consciously or unconsciously, be tailored tosuit the cause and purpose of the creator. It must be recognised that the use ofelectronic evidence poses serious challenges to the rules of evidence and mustbe adequately addressed to ensure that the use of such technology are only usedin the interests ofjustice.”[18]

Evidentiary questions concerning summaries and computer generated graphics


In the context of conspiracy to defraud cases, it has beensaid by Menzies J as far back as 1970 in the High Court that “[t]he use ofsuch charts and other timesaving devices in complicated trials of this kind is ausual and desirable procedure and is encouraged by thecourts.”[19] Despite these earlyencouraging remarks, there is considerable doubt concerning the evidentiarystatus of such materials, and considerable variation in practice betweendifferent courts.[20]

The Evidence Acts of the Commonwealth, New South Wales, andVictoria,[21] contain provisions which givetrial judges the discretion to allow the giving of evidence in some form otherthan oral evidence where the particular evidence is complex and voluminous. Theform of the ‘other summary evidence’ does not appear to be limitedto documentary evidence and may include computer animation, graphics ormodelling. Western Australia is now in the process of enacting a similarlegislative provision in its Evidence Act 1906(WA).[22] I would recommend the adoption ofsimilar legislative provisions in all other Australian jurisdictions.

Presenting computer-animated crime re-enactments often raisestraditional evidentiary problems as unfair prejudice can arise as a result ofusing persuasive animations and graphics. It has been recommended that inexercising its discretion in admitting computer generated aids in thepresentation of evidence a court should take into account the extent to whichany lack of access by the defence to computer equipment may lead to thatevidence having prejudicial, misleading or unfair tendencies orqualities.[23] A further recommendation hasbeen that where the prosecution intends to use computer generated graphics orsummaries which aid in the presentation of evidence in court, it should considermaking available to the defence software or other resources to assist in thedefence presenting its own graphics orsummaries.[24] I agree with the firstrecommendation, but I would suggest that the practical problems relating to thesecond recommendation would render it unfeasible.

Benefits of the use of digital aids in the presentation of evidence


Some of the uses of digital technologies to representsituations, events and objects (as evidence) and potential issues or problemshave been identified. However, the digital representation of objects may havesubstantial benefits for the criminal justice system.

Currently, the Western Australian Police Service and theDirector of Public Prosecutions expend a substantial amount of money and timemanaging physical and paper exhibits in criminal matters. Many of these objectsare difficult and dangerous to handle and store. Furthermore, many pieces ofevidence must be handled/viewed by many personnel, in different offices, beforethey are (physically) needed at a criminal trial. This requirement in relationto the evidence requires the object to be physically moved between sites, andcontrol transferred from one body to another. Each of these movements, and otherhandling, increases the likelihood of evidence being lost, damaged or otherwisemishandled. To avoid such occurrences, the cost increases.

If the object in evidence wasdigitised,[25] then the original, physicalobject of evidence could be securely stored in a single locked location untilrequired in court, if at all. Renditions[26] ofthe object could be readily transferred between all parties requiring access tothe evidence, in a purely digital form. Multiple copies of the rendition couldbe maintained in multiple locations (for instance, all police officers involvedin a criminal matter, prosecutors, and defence counsel could have a renditioncopy of the evidence at the same time, to use for their own purposes).

The risk of mishandling and losing evidence would be greatlyreduced. The cost of handling evidence would consequently be lowered. TheWestern Australian Police Service could maintain a single central store forevidence, under secure control and management, and achieve economies in suchmanagement.

The time and effort taken in preparing many criminal mattersmay be reduced, due to the ready availability of evidence to all parties. Anadditional benefit would be earlier access to materials for thedefence.

Video in the Courts


Videoconferencing is currently used extensively in theAustralian legal system and has revolutionised communication with courts. Thebasic components of videoconferencing are cameras, monitors, microphones,speakers and a communications network. Videoconferences can include more thantwo locations with multiple sites being represented on a monitor by splittingthe screen, enabling each participant to see everyone else involved. Thecommunications system utilised can be as simple as a pair of coaxial cablesconnecting the actual sites or as complex as satellite transmission andreception. It is now also possible to use the Internet tovideoconference.

In December 1994, the Video Technology in Courts SteeringCommittee was established to oversee the development and implementation of videotechnologies in the Western AustralianCourts.[27] Since that time, a number ofaccomplishments have been achieved:
Video conferencing systems were installed in the SupremeCourt, the Central Law Courts and the CW Campbell Remand Centre in March 1996 toenable prisoners on remand to appear before the central business district courtsby video link;
In a number of cases in various jurisdictions, the WAvideoconferencing facilities have been used for taking evidence from intrastate,interstate and overseas witnesses;
In August 1998, a video system was established in theKalgoorlie Court. To better manage cases at country circuit courts, the DistrictCourt in March 1999 commenced a pilot of the video-conferencing facilities forcallovers one week prior to the circuit sitting;
The Acts Amendment (Video and Audio Links) Act 1998established safeguards and powers for Western Australian courts to receiveevidence and submissions from persons intrastate, interstate and overseas (andvice versa).[28] The Sentencing Act 1995has also been amended to enable persons to be sentenced byvideo.[29]

The Western Australian experience has also been mirrored inother Australian jurisdictions.[30] Indeed,Australia has been internationally recognised for the effective use ofvideoconferencing in legal proceedings.[31] Theinnovative use by Australian courts of this technology comes as no surprisegiven the vast geographic distances with which these courts mustcontend.

An implementation plan is in place which will see the allmajor Western Australian metropolitan and regional courts being equipped withvideo facilities to eventually establish a state-wide videoconferencing network.The network will enable a significant amount of court business to be effected byvideo. This will reduce travel costs to the Crown and other parties, improveaccess to justice in regional locations, create a better system for managingcountry circuit lists and enhance communications between city and countrypersonnel working in the justice system.

The advantages of using video technologies and in particular,videoconferencing are many and obvious. In the context of criminal proceedingswhere it has been used for preliminary hearings while the prisoner is incustody, they include:[32]
the reduction of inmate transportation costs;
the elimination of security problems in prisonertransportation;
the reduction in the number of prison personnel needed forinmate movement:
reduction in tension by eliminating inmate movement andwaiting in holding cells;
the ability of inmates to be released more quickly after thecourt hearing;
savings in travel time and costs; and
savings in court time awaiting the arrival ofinmates.


More generally, advantages in using videoconferencinginclude:[33]

Remands

Prisoners can remain in gaol and therefore eliminate or reducetransport costs, security risks and disruption to other prisoners.
Pre hearing conferences/ proceedings
Counsel and clients can interact with the court from anylocation and have access to the judiciary for circuit, early arraignments,circuit directions hearings and other preliminary steps on a daily basis withoutjudges, practitioners and other parties having to travel.
Remote/Protected witness
Remote witness systems in some jurisdictions currently requirewitnesses to give evidence from an office within the court building, but outsidethe actual court room. Videoconferencing will provide unlimited opportunitiesfor expert and protected witnesses to be able to provide evidence quickly,securely and cost effectively from any location worldwide.

Expert witnesses

It is currently very expensive to provide this type ofevidence. Videoconferencing will enable organisations such as Police ForensicScience Laboratories as well as private practitioners to increase theirproductivity by reducing travel time and making it more affordable to useintrastate, interstate and overseas experts.
Remote appearance by counsel
There are limited instances where advocates can adequatelyfulfil their duties remotely from the court. This increases accessibility andraises productivity using videoconferencing technology.


Some of the limitations of videoconferencinginclude:[34]
Loss of personal contact
Videoconferencing will never replace the personal contact inthe courtroom, which the judiciary and court users feel is needed in some cases.It will merely provide an alternative communication method for those matterswhere such contact may not be critical to the running of the case.

Technical breakdown

Computers and videoconferencing equipment can malfunction andwill require appropriate technical support.

Cost

Video systems are expensive to acquire, install andupdate.

One of the dangers of conducting a large portion of courtbusiness by video is the ‘virtualness’ of the way the system maywork and its impact on the individual. For instance, will a sentence for aserious offence have the same impact by video compared to a judge addressing theoffender in an open court before affected families and friends and members ofthe public?[35] On the other hand, limitedanecdotal experience within Western Australia has shown that video can be veryeffective for certain witnesses because the jury were focused on the televisionscreens and listened intently to the evidence. Close-ups of a particularwitness’s face had the effect of allowing the court to better observefacial expressions. Conversely, others have commented that other body language,such as what the witness does with his or her hands or feet, is unable to beobserved. However, an English study[36]reported that there was nothing to suggest that jurors watching a witness giveevidence over a video link would produce decisions or judgments on thecredibility of the witness radically different from those made under regularcourt conditions.

These issues will require careful consideration. The VideoTechnology in Courts Steering Committee concluded that videoconferencing couldbe suitable for use in almost any type of case provided adequate safeguards arein place to protect the rights of all parties. Accordingly the Acts Amendment(Video and Audio Links) Act gives the court the power to make an order for avideo appearance or sentence as long as it is in the interests ofjustice.[37]

The negative or positive impact that an increasing use ofvideo will have upon individual court users and the quality of justice isdifficult to determine at this stage. Although videoconferences have been usedwith success for various court matters in different countries and in Australia,it has mainly been used for examining particular witnesses or for preliminaryproceedings. The use of video in court proceedings has not yet reached a pointwhere, for a jury trial, all or most parties appear by video and thereby createa virtual courtroom. Further research needs to be conducted into the likelyimpact of video technologies on individual participants and on the quality ofjustice that ultimately results.[38]

Project Pathfinder


“ProjectPathfinder”[39] is a recent initiative ofthe Victorian Department of Justice which attempts to integrate the variousagencies involved in the criminal justice system (Police, the courts, Legal Aid,DPP and Correctional Services) and suggested improvements to the system throughchanges to criminal procedure and adversarial norms. Pathfinder confirmed thattechnology can enable significant improvements throughout the entire criminaljustice system, and recommended that changes to actual processes can be aided bythe increased use of technology. The stage two report of Pathfinder identified16 strategies which clearly demonstrate the importance of technology to theimplementation of the Project:[40]
introducing progressive disclosure of information to allparties when a charge is laid;
improved access to legal advice services;
more timely legal aid assessments;
the greater application of case time standards;
certainty in the case listing process;
improved case management of criminal cases;
introduction of court program coordination services toprovide advice on assessments, treatment programs, etc;
the assignment of single responsibility for custodialcare;
persons on remand being accommodated in custodycentres;
the better coordination of prisoner transportation managementand operation;
the development of an investigation management process whichis well supported by electronically based information systems;
the expansion of electronically based briefmanagement;
improved exhibit management;
the development of a Justice Information Exchange (JIX) tofacilitate the electronic exchange of information between criminal justiceagencies;
the introduction of an accused management system based arounda single, secure and current store of information about accused persons;and
the progressive development of appropriate statewide justicetechnology infrastructure to support electronically the new, integrated criminaljustice processes.

Pathfinder’s recommendations for early and better casepreparation involve progressive disclosure by the prosecution and defence fromthe date the charge is laid. An electronic document exchange system would enablepolice informants or prosecutors to release information as it becomes availableinto a database accessible by the defence lawyer. Earlier and improved access tolegal aid and a more efficient legal aid assessment process are also seen asfundamental.

The most important and practically achievable recommendationsof Pathfinder concern the ‘Justice Information Exchange’ (JIX)whereby all agencies involved with criminal justice would be electronicallylinked, while operating their own individual systems. The JIX is essentially adatabase that will track an accused from the moment of charge through thecriminal justice process with secure access being made available to authorisedagencies at appropriate points of the case. The JIX will contain, for example,brief information, accused information, exhibit information, referenceinformation and process performance information.

Project Pathfinder is one of the more ambitious reform effortsin the criminal justice area. It goes further than simply investigating andenabling the increased use of technology to streamline the administration ofcriminal justice and suggests major changes to the operation of cases. TheVictorian Law Reform Committee described Project Pathfinder, in its breadth ofvision and use of technology, as representing worlds best practice in the areaof an integrated criminal justice system.[41] Iwould agree with those comments and suggest that Pathfinder could well become amodel for future reform in other jurisdictions.


Conclusion


Perhaps the c"urrent state of the criminal justice system andthe need for change is best described in the following comments:
As the world pulls into the fast lane ofthe Information Age, criminal justice has fallen behind dramatically. What wasonce a workable system is becoming increasingly unworkable as public safetyfalters, civil rights diminish, and public trust in criminal justice wanes. ...Criminal justice must enter the Informaon Age by incorporating technology as atool to make the system run efficiently and effectively. This will happen onlywhen the participants make an enthusiastic common cause to fully integrate theinformation processes involved in criminal justice while maintainingindependence for parts which must remainseparate.[42]

The challenges facing those responsible for maintaining anaccessible, equitable, and efficient criminal justice system have never beenmore daunting. The implementation and adoption of appropriate technology willrequire a commitment and leadership from all those involved in the criminaljustice system. The increased use of appropriate technology, both currentlyavailable and available in the foreseeable future, will enable these challengesto be overcome.

[1] R Susskind, The Futureof Law: Facing the Challenges of Information Technology, Clarendon Press,Oxford, 1998, p. xxxii.
[2] For example, a number ofCourtrooms operating in Perth have the capacity to be ‘total digitalenvironments’ enabling access to electronic presentation of almost pieceof evidence, court computer systems, Internet services and digital recordingsystems.
[3] Law Reform Commission ofWestern Australia, Review of the Criminal and Civil Justice System in WesternAustralia: Consultation Drafts Vol 2, Project 92, June 1999, p1132.
[4] ss 69 and 147 EvidenceAct 1995 (Cth)
[5] s146 Evidence Act1995 (Cth)
[6] ss 48 and 51 EvidenceAct 1995 (Cth)
[7] Unlike in the present s79CEvidence Act 1906 (WA)
[8] See for example ss166-169Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
[9] The Hon Justice Beazley,‘Hearsay and Related Evidence – A New Era?’ (1995) 18University of New South Wales Law Journal 39; In relation to WA law,McKerracher, ‘Documents, Opinions and Facilitation of Proof; Parts 2.2,3.3 and 4.3 of the Commonwealth Evidence Act’ in Law Society ofWestern Australia, The Federal Evidence Act, 26 October 1995.
[10] Acts Amendment(Evidence)Bill 1999
[11] Most notably theEvidence Act 1929 (SA)
[12] Clause 10 ActsAmendment (Evidence)Bill 1999. This provision is based on s45c EvidenceAct 1929 (SA)
[13] Clause 15 ActsAmendment (Evidence)Bill 1999 (WA).
[14] Roskill L J, FraudTrials Committee Report, 1986, HMSO; Greenleaf G & Mowbray A,Information Technology in Complex Criminal Trials, AIJA, 1993.
[15] Greenleaf G &Mowbray A, Information Technology in Complex Criminal Trials, AIJA, 1993,p. 9-10.
[16] Harris V,“Overview of Computerised Transcript’, paper presented at the AIJATechnology for Justice Conference, Melbourne, April, 1998.
[17] Report of the Law ReformCommittee of Victoria, Technology and the Law, May 1999 p 181
[18] Soon J, ‘CourtingTechnology for the 21st Century’ (Paper presented at theTechnology for Justice Conference, AIJA, Melbourne, March 1998) p9-10.
[19] Smith v R (1970)44 ALJR 467 at 469.
[20] Aronson M, ManagingComplex Criminal Trials: Reform of the rules of evidence and procedure,AIJA, 1992, p. 63
[21] see s.50 Evidence Act1995 (Cth) and (NSW) and s42B Evidence Act 1958 (Vic). Theseprovisions followed recommendations 12 and 13 made by Aronson M, ManagingComplex Criminal Trials: Reform of the rules of evidence and procedure,AIJA, 1992.
[22] See clause 6 of theActs Amendment (Evidence) Bill 1999.
[23] Greenleaf G &Mowbray A, Information Technology in Complex Criminal Trials, AIJA, 1993– recommendation 30.
[24] Greenleaf G &Mowbray A, Information Technology in Complex Criminal Trials, AIJA, 1993– recommendation 31.
[25] By scanning an image ofpaper based evidence, taking photographs of physical evidence, taking videotape(moving images) of physical evidence, or even producing a virtual realitymodel of a piece of physical evidence.
[26] A rendition beinganother copy of the object but in a different form. For instance, a photographof a knife is not a copy of the knife (the copy would also be physical and threedimensional) but rather a rendition of the object in a photographic form –being a copy in a different format.
[27] Law Reform Commission ofWestern Australia, Review of the Criminal and Civil Justice System in WesternAustralia: Consultation Drafts Vol 2, Project 92, June 1999, p1130-1131.
[28] See ss120-133Evidence Act 1906 (WA).
[29] See s.14A SentencingAct 1995 (WA). Parliamentary Counsel has advised that courts already havethe power to make an order for any proceeding or portion of a proceeding to beconducted by video or audio link unless there is a legislative impediment to doso. The new Act does not enable persons to be sentenced by audiolinks.
[30] See for example theVictorian experience as expressed in the Report of the Law Reform Committee ofVictoria, Technology and the Law, May 1999 p 174-179.
[31] Several papers at theAIJA Technology for Justice Conference noted Australia’s effective use ofvideoconferencing.
[32] Court TechnologyAdvisory Committee, Judicial Council of California Report on the Applicationof Video Technology in the California Courts, August 1997, p.11.
[33] Report of the Law ReformCommittee of Victoria, Technology and the Law, May 1999 p.176
[34] Report of the Law ReformCommittee of Victoria, Technology and the Law, May 1999 p 177
[35] Law Reform Commission ofWestern Australia, Review of the Criminal and Civil Justice System in WesternAustralia: Consultation Drafts Vol 2, Project 92, June 1999, p1133.
[36] Westcott H, Davies G andClifford B, “The Credibility of Child Witnesses seen on Closed-CircuitTelevision” 15(1) (1991) Adoption and Fostering 14.
[37] s.121(2) Evidence Act1906 (WA) and s.14A(2) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)
[38] Law Reform Commission ofWestern Australia, Review of the Criminal and Civil Justice System in WesternAustralia: Final Report, Project 92, September 1999, proposal No. 435,p325.
[39] Victoria, Department ofJustice, Project Pathfinder: Stage 1 – Redesign Opportunities, May1996
[40] Thomas M, Minutes ofEvidence, 26 November 1998, p 271 in Report of the Law Reform Committee ofVictoria, Technology and the Law, May 1999
[41] Report of the Law ReformCommittee of Victoria, Technology and the Law, May 1999, p 89.
[42] Hon George Nicholson andJA Hogge, ‘Retooling Criminal Justice: Interbranch CooperationNeeded’ (1996) Government Technology,http://www.govtech.net/publications/gt/1996/feb/jandtfeb/jandtfeb.shtm