Current research projects

Gateways to Justice: Improving video-mediated communications for justice participants

ARC Funded Research Grant

Australia will be better protected from terrorism and crime if courts are able to make effective use of high-quality video evidence, both from scientific experts and from key witnesses who cannot be available in person for security reasons. Appropriate application of the technology can also increase effective and timely access to justice for other justice participants including indigenous people living in remote communities. The project contributes to the take-up of frontier technology by developing best practice models for using video testimony in justice settings, and identifying the social and environmental conditions necessary for successful implementation.

This three-year research project is collecting data about how video communications currently work in Australian and international courts, examining alternative designs for remote witness spaces, testing enhanced witness orientation processes. Its aim is to recommend best practice guidelines for more effective use of court technologies. The multidisciplinary research team includes researchers with backgrounds in architecture, psychology, law, forensic science, criminology, acoustics and communications.

The project is testing the impact of technological change on participants’ sense of presence, the effectiveness of certain types of communication, and the impact of social and environmental changes, as well as examining their combined effects. Real courtroom environments are modified, based on the results of the experiments, and the impacts on users are measured and analysed.

Objectives

  1. To describe how the social, technological and built environments of remote witness facilities affect the experience of justice participants
  2. To identify the factors that produce greater sense of presence for users of remote witness facilities and facilitate more effective communication between them and the participants elsewhere
  3. To measure the impact of selected changes in the design and use of remote witness facilities on sense of presence and quality of communication
  4. To develop best practice guidelines for the most effective use of remote access facilities in the administration of justice.

What’s been achieved to date

A major experiment was conducted on 3-21 August 2009 at the Country Court in Melbourne to test alternative configurations of remote witness spaces, identify issues in the implementation of video technology, and develop ‘best practice’ for orienting and introducing witnesses. Some 200 lay participants took part, together with 20 expert witnesses provided by the AFP and other forensic organisations.

Basic demographic data was collected from jurors and witnesses in a preliminary survey asking their views about technology and courts. A short video of an incident was played to lay witnesses in the remote witness room, and they were then required to answer questions over a video link. Witnesses were allocated to one of two remote rooms and to one or two witness orientation conditions. Forensic witness also testified on a topic related to their discipline.

Short surveys were then completed to measure the responses of ‘jurors’ and ‘witnesses’ to differences between the conditions in terms of invisibility, audibility and quality of the remote facility and witness orientation processes. Extensive debriefs were also carried out over the 25 sessions,

A reporting back session for research participants and research partners was held in Melbourne on 5 November 2009 at the Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, University of Melbourne.

The project will work with jurisdictions to enhance the orientation and introduction process for remote witnesses and define procedures and a pilot will run in one court in order to evaluate the enhanced orientation processes. At the same time, for jurisdictions that are introducing or upgrading remote witness technology, remote witness room design, or both, the project will collect data on pre and post the intervention for three months each using a control court that has not made the changes for comparison.

Project participants

David Tait, University of Western Sydney; Terry Carney, University of Sydney; Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Charles Sturt University; Chris Lennard, University of Canberra; Alice Richardson, University of Canberra; Graham Brawn, The University of Melbourne; Greg Battye, University of Canberra; Deborah Blackman, University of Canberra; Diane Jones, PTW Architects; Greg Missingham, The University of Melbourne; James Robertson, University of Canberra; Anne Wallace, University of Canberra; Mark Hanson, Hanson Associates; Kate Auty, Victorian Sustainability Commission; Justice Richard Refshauge, Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court.

Partners

Australian Federal Police, PTW Architects, Production Audio Services Pty Ltd, Department of Justice Victoria, Director of Public Prosecutions, Department of the Attorney-General WA, Jumbo Vision International Pty Ltd, ICE Design Australia Pty Ltd, Hanson Associates.

Publications and conference papers

Newsletters

Conference papers

Wallace, Anne & Rowden, Emma 2009, ‘Gateways to Justice: the use of videoconferencing technology to take evidence in Australian Courts’ in Dan Remenyi (ed.), Ninth European Conference on e-Government, 29-30 June 2009. Academic Publishing International, Reading UK.

Contacts

Professor David Tait, Dr Meredith Rossner

Fortress or Sanctuary? Enhancing court safety by managing people, places and processes

ARC Funded Research Grant

Courts, like other public buildings, are increasingly becoming fortresses as public anxieties about security are translated into barriers, electronic screening systems and enhanced surveillance. At the same time court administrations are trying to create environments that reduce stress, avoid intimidation and respect cultural diversity. Restorative and therapeutic styles of justice have emerged to provide greater cultural and psychological safety.

This project provides a comparative analysis of safety processes, practices and designs in four jurisdictions, documents the safety experience and expectations of stakeholders, and develops best practice guidelines for providing safer court environments. In providing a holistic analysis of safety needs and responses, the study also provides an empirical foundation for developing ‘smart information uses’, ensuring the surveillance and screening technologies complement court design and training policies to create environments that are physically and psychologically safe.

Objectives

  1. To identify actual and perceived safety needs of court user communities
  2. To identify the features of court processes, practices and designs that contribute to safer court environments
  3. To measure the impact of changes ot court processes, practices and designs on the safety of court environments
  4. To develop best practice guidelines for improving the safety environments of courts

What’s been achieved to date

The project has been granted ethics approval and interviews have been conducted in South Australia, Western Australia, New Zealand the Family Court of Australia. Some identified initial challenges include:

  1. A tension between perimeter security and psychological safety and comfort of court users
  2. How to strike a balance between improving design and enhancing client services
  3. How to meet safety and security needs of staff and court users (as well as the judiciary, police and other stakeholders).

Current stage

The current stage involves:

  1. analysis of administrative data
  2. interviews with key stakeholders in each jurisdiction
  3. focus groups of court space users to explore how people experience the spaces
  4. activity maps of court buildings
  5. analysis of client services practice
  6. satisfaction surveys by staff and police witnesses and lay users such as jurors and stakeholder consultations.

Project participants

David Tait, University of Western Sydney; Prasuna Reddy, Flinders University, Graham Brawn, The university of Melbourne; Rick Sarre, University of South Australia; Debra Rickwood, University of Canberra; Deborah Blackman, University of Canberra; Greg Missingham, The University of Melbourne; Anne Wallace, University of Canberra; Kate Auty, Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability

Partners

Family Court of Australia, Department of Attorney General WA, Courts Administration Authority SA, Magistrates Court Vic., MyriaD Consulting, PTW Architects, Connleywalker Pty Ltd, Lyons Architects

Publications

Tait, D. 2009, ‘Democratic Spaces in a Citadel of Authority’, Architecture Australia, 98(5): 45-6.

Newsletters

Contacts

Professor David Tait, Dr Meredith Rossner

Juror Confidence in Justice: Democratic Participation or Deference to Authority?

ARC Funded Research Grant (Discovery)

The experience of being on a jury can contribute to increased confidence in justice processes, institutions and staff. There are two apparently contradictory explanations for this: either jurors get a taste for democracy as they participate in collective decision-making or they develop increased respect for judicial authority. Knowing how these factors work is a key to building confidence in justice. Using a case study developed with police and prosecutors, this project measures the impact of democratic participation and deference to authority on jurors under experimental conditions in a court environment. The findings will enable courts to improve the jury experience and enhance juror confidence in justice.

Objectives

  1. To review the evidence about confidence in justice institutions, staff and processes and how jury experience may impact on this
  2. To measure the impact of different levels of democratic participation and deference to authority on juror confidence in justice
  3. To develop guidelines for reforming the jury process to maximise its contribution to public confidence in justice.

What’s been achieved to date

Initial data organisation and collection has commenced, including assessing the literature on jury deliberation and on confidence in justice as well as literatures on pwer and authority, and democratic deliberation and civic participation. The project will test opposing theories situated in different perspectives – deference to authority and democratic deliberation. Appropriate scales and measures are currently being refined. In 2010, phases 1 (scoping and reanalysis of secondary data) and 2 (pre-testing experimental conditions) will be completed. A trial experiment will be carried out to test and adjust the experimental conditions.

Participants

David Tait, University of Western Sydney; Stephen Parker, University of Canberra; Terry Carney, University of Sydney; Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Charles Sturt University.

Contacts

Professor David Tait, Dr Meredith Rossner

Updated May 2010