In the UK, the Supreme Court is shut and cases are being conducted by the videoconferencing set-up. All participants connect from their homes and judgements have been delivered live. This is much the same for Brazil, China, India and Singapore.

In the US, the Supreme Court recently started taking oral evidence by an audio link and the Supreme Court of Norway handed down a judgement on written submissions alone. Here in Australia, some courts are gearing up to return to normal practice.

On why Australian courts and barristers were able to adjust quickly, Katherine Lorenz, the CEO of the Victorian Bar, said: “We have never been technologically focused, but the Australian lawyers and the courts can communicate really well.”

“We at the bar, for example, have been communicating with the courts through the entire COVID-19 problem, and that open communication has enabled them to make decisions, and for [the bar and its members] to respond to the decisions they have made,” she said.

The Australian courts and bar associations have strong relationships with the government who are able to communicate concerns and issues about the system. The open lines and methods of communication have put “Australian lawyers in good speed”, as does talking to interstate counterparts to ensure everybody gets on top of this difficult situation.

Remote Courts Worldwide, a news service for judges and lawyers, has recorded that the migration from physical to digital alternatives is happening in most advanced jurisdictions.

In Australia, several jurisdictions have been holding hearings remotely for some time now. Special leave applications to the High Court, for example, are held by video link and the Federal Court holds appearances in much the same way.

VIEW ALL

According to Rebecca Treston QC, president of the Bar Association of Queensland, there is a general confidence for receiving a just hearing and, perhaps, the “fair delivery of justice has laid a solid framework for the profession’s confidence”.

“The courts have made it very clear that they remain open for business and the profession has supported that approach,” Ms Treston said. “No one wants to see a massive backlog in six months’ time because we all recognise that justice delayed is justice denied.”

In Queensland particularly, electronic document management systems have been used successfully in trials for some time, “so those facilities have been very adaptable”. But for how the courts have kept up with global changes, it has been the case for some years for expert evidence to be given by telephone, “so perhaps it is not such a surprise”.

“Mostly I think it is because the courts have worked co-operatively with the profession to identify ways to keep the system operating to the fullest extent possible,” said Ms Treston.