By KIRSTI WEISZ,
legal editor

Judges are being urged to make greater use of Skype in Australian courtrooms as a way of making justice more accessible.

The call came from Victoria Legal Aid and university academics, who said that despite a number of important issues such as security and reliability, greater use of the technology  could have significant benefits.

For witnesses living overseas or in remote areas, testifying via Skype is an affordable and convenient way to access Australia’s legal system.

While state and federal legislation allow testimony to be made by videoconferencing, there are few circumstances where Skype is currently being used in the courts.

Victoria Legal Aid indictable crime program manager Trieu Huynh has previously used Skype in court and said it could benefit people in remote areas, especially for matters that were “administrative and quick”.

“I'm of the view that if you are obligated to come to court, then you should,” he said.

“But there are circumstances, like living in a remote area or overseas, where there is a good reason for not coming but it needs to be the exception and not the rule.”

Mr Huynh said Skype could increase access to justice for people living in areas with limited public transport and for those who don’t have cars.

For people who live in remote and rural areas, videoconferencing presents several challenges, including that the videoconference locations can be too small and crowded. This can affect a witness’s mental health if they are feeling anxious and apprehensive.

He also said that there should be limits placed on using Skype for the benefit of the people and the integrity of the system.

“[Skype] needs to be utilised in the appropriate way that would give access to justice,” he said.

“If the technology is not sufficient then, in the interests of justice and the integrity of the system, it can't be used.

“There's definitely an appetite and enthusiasm [for using Skype]. The legal system takes a while to embrace technology but we are slowly heading in the right direction.”

In the recent article Should Australian courts give more witnesses the right to Skype?, University of Notre Dame Australia academics Dr Marilyn Krawitz and Justine Howard recommended more Australian courts consider using Skype.

Dr Krawitz said there were few instances of Skype being used in Australia at the moment.

“The way Skype is currently being used in the legal system is best described as ad hoc and infrequent,” she said.

“In certain cases, we should use Skype and the presiding judge should consider the pros and cons.”

Despite Skype being a cheaper and more convenient alternative to videoconferencing, Ms Howard said there have been a range of reasons why judges are concerned about using Skype in the courtroom.

“[There is] reluctance because the resolution is not as good as videoconferencing,” she said.

“Judges are concerned about the credibility of witnesses, particularly with contentious evidence … and there is a fear Skype may be unreliable and could malfunction in a courtroom.”

Using Skype may also have security issues such as the ability for third-party eavesdropping and the potential for it to be hacked.

In 2013, the George Zimmerman murder trial in the US was disrupted when people saw the Skype handle of the witness testifying via Skype on TV. Members of the public repeatedly called the witness to interrupt the trial.

While this may not be as big a problem in Australia as court cases are not televised, someone in the courtroom can still inform the public of a witness's Skype handle.

Dr Krawitz and Ms Howard said judges were cautious of their ability to see a witness’s demeanour properly while using Skype.

However, District Court Judge Judith Gibson said the “principal problem” generally had nothing to do with demeanour.

Judge Gibson said issues of credibility were not as important as they used to be with most cases turning on the chronology of events.

“Evidence on Skype has only been taken in the District Court on a handful of occasions,” she said.

“When I took such evidence in a personal injury case, there were compatibility problems and we could not get any vision, so we ended up taking evidence by telephone.”

Judge Gibson was also uncertain about the security of evidence provided over Skype, particularly in cases involving child sexual assault.

“A significant issue … is the security of the evidence. I remain uncertain about how secure such evidence would be,” she said.

“Whether a witness should be permitted to give evidence through Skype … depends on the facts in each case.”

The main reason Dr Krawitz and Ms Howard wrote their article was to present the use of Skype in the courtroom as an issue that is “front and centre for determining the future of technology in the courtroom”.

“Skype can be useful in the courtroom,” Dr Krawitz said.

“It may be that in the future … the current concerns won’t be an issue because technology will change and security may dramatically improve and the resolution may dramatically improve.”

Australian courts have often been called out for lagging behind other countries such as the US and the UK when it comes to embracing technology.

In an interview with the ABC’s Law Report, Dr Krawitz said the use of Skype in the US courtroom was more widespread than in Australia.

Judge Gibson said the use of technology and social media in the courtroom made the “administration of justice fairer as well as faster and cheaper”.

“Courts are struggling to keep up with technological change – but then, so is everyone, really,” she said.