Court-provided trial technology : efficiency and fairness for criminal trials

In Australia, trials conducted as 'electronic trials' have ordinarily run with the assistance of commercial service providers, with the associated costs being borne by the parties. However, an innovative approach has been taken by the courts in Queensland. In October 2007 Queensland became the first Australian jurisdiction to develop its own court-provided technology, to facilitate the conduct of an electronic trial. This technology was first used in the conduct of civil trials. The use of the technology in the civil sphere highlighted its benefits and, more significantly, demonstrated the potential to achieve much greater efficiencies. The Queensland courts have now gone further, using the court-provided technology in the high proffle criminal trial of R v Hargraves, Hargraves and Stoten, in which the three accused were tried for conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth of Australia of about $3.7 million in tax. This paper explains the technology employed in this case and reports on the perspectives of all of the participants in the process. The representatives for all parties involved in this trial acknowledged, without reservation, that the use of the technology at trial produced considerable overall efficiencies and costs savings. The experience in this trial also demonstrates that the benefits of trial technology for the criminal justice process are greater than those for civil litigation. It shows that, when skilfully employed, trial technology presents opportunities to enhance the fairness of trials for accused persons. The paper urges governments, courts and the judiciary in all jurisdictions to continue their efforts to promote change, and to introduce mechanisms to facilitate more broadly a shift from the entrenched paper-based approach to both criminal and civil procedure to one which embraces more broadly the enormous benefits trial technology has to offer.

Legal Profession Act 2007 s 319 - Whether costs agreement made after trial valid and enforceable - whether agreement had retrospective operation

The decision in QCOAL Pty Ltd v Cliffs Australia Coal Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 479 involved an examination of a number of issues relating to the assessment of costs under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). The decision highlights a range of issues which, in slightly different circumstances, may have deprived the successful party of the right to recover costs by reference to the costs agreement.

District Court debt decisions

This article examines the distinction between a "liquidated demand" and a claim for "unliquidated damages" and the implications of that distinction on the procedure for obtaining a judgment if the defendant fails to file a notice of intention to defend.

Devil's in the detail : judgment highlights need for invoice transparency

This article considers the implications of the decision in Clayton Utz Lawyers v P & W Enterprises Pty Ltd [2011] QDC 5, and the meaning of "itemised bill" as defined in the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld).

A nod to consent : in step with the UCPR

This article considers the decision of Robin DCJ in CTP Manager Limited v Ascent Pty Ltd [2011] QDC 74 and the likely impact of the decision on the practice in the court registries in similar circumstances.

Interim bills and costs assessment : was the application in or out of time?

This article examines the decision in Turner v Mitchells Solicitors [2011] QDC 61 and the issue whether an application for assessment of costs under an interim bill at the time of a final bill is subject to the usual 12-month restriction.

Central Queensland Mining Supplies Pty Ltd v Columbia Steel Casting Co Ltd

In Central Queensland Mining Supplies Pty Ltd v Columbia Steel Casting Co Ltd [2011] QSC 183 Applegarth J considered complaints made by the defendant about the approach the plaintiff had taken in its endeavour to comply with its disclosure obligation under r 211 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The judgment also provides an indication of the direction the court is taking in relation to disclosure and document management in matters involving large numbers of documents.

Practice and Procedure. Self-executing order - construction - whether further judicial at required for self-executing order to take effect

In Mango Boulevard Pty Ltd v Spencer [2010] QCA 207, a self-executing order had been made in consequence of continuing default by parties to the proceedings in meeting their disclosure obligations. The case involved several questions about the construction and implications of the self-executing order. This note focuses on the aspects of the case relating to that order.

Practice and procedure : a recent Court of Appeal case examines the meaning of 'third party payer' in terms of Part 3.4 of the Legal Profession Act 2007.

In Legal Services Commissioner v Wright [2010] QCA 321 the Queensland Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from the first instance decision. The decision involved the construction of “third party payer” in Part 3.4 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld).

Civil applications in the Magistrates Court are often set down for hearing by a judicial registrar, but there is now some uncertainty on the limitation of this practice

The decision of the District Court of Queensland in Mark Treherne & Associates -v- Murray David Hopkins [2010] QDC 36 will have particular relevance for early career lawyers. This decision raises questions about the limits of the jurisdiction of judicial registrars in the Magistrates Court.

Practice and procedure : an application under r367 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules may be of use in obtaining copies of otherwise unavailable documents held by government agencies.

In Bowenbrae Pty Ltd v Flying Fighters Maintenance and Restoration [2010] QDC 347 Reid DCJ made orders requiring the plaintiffs to make application under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (“the FOI Act”) for documents sought by the defendant.

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, s 32 - Duty to Disclose - consequences of non-disclosure - discretion to excuse non-compliance

In Newson v Aust Scan Pty Ltd t/a Ikea Springwood [2010] QSC 223 the Supreme Court examined the discretion under s 32(2) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), to permit a document which has not been disclosed as required by the pre-court procedures under the PIPA to be used in a subsequent court proceeding. This appears to be the first time that the nature and parameters of the discretion have been judicially considered.

Nangkha Nangdrik in the land of the thunder dragon

- The Kingdom of Bhutan is a country on the move - In July 2008, Bhutan transitioned from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy - The Constitution and a number of pieces of national legislation make specific reference to alternative dispute resolution. - An alternative dispute resolution Bill will come before the Bhutanese parliament in early 2012.

Jury option needs early verdict

The decision in Rubin v Buchanan [2011] QSC 275 confirms that a trial by jury should be considered at the outset of a proceeding.

Accounting for costs

In Golder Associates Pty Ltd v Challen [2012] QDC 11 Samios DCJ recognised a solicitor’s lien over the file for unpaid fees and confirmed that a lien should not be lightly set aside. The decision, which is under appeal, adds to the range of authorities which are now grappling with some of the provisions of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (the LPA) relating to costs billing and assessment. These would appear to have been drafted without a great deal of intellectual rigour (cf. Turner v Mitchells Solicitors [2011] QDC 61 at [26]).