Young people in detention (10–17) are routinely appearing in court via video link. There is little research on the use of video-link technology for court appearances for this age group. This project maps current practice through systematic courtroom observations, backed up by interviews with judges, lawyers, police, court personnel and others involved in the youth justice system. It identifies strategies to improve current video-link processes and changes to protocols needed to minimise the risk of adverse outcomes for the children appearing via this technology.
References
URLs correct as at November 2020
Anderson S, Hawes D & Snow P 2016. Language impairments among youth offenders: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review 65: 195–203
ACCG (Australian Children’s Commissioners and Guardians) 2017. Statement on conditions and treatment in youth justice detention. Brisbane: Queensland Government
AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) 2020. Young people under youth justice supervision and in child protection 2018–19. Data linkage series no. 26. AIHW cat. no. CSI 28. Canberra: AIHW. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/youth-justice/young-people-in-child-protection/contents/summary
AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) 2019. Young people in child protection and under youth justice supervision: 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2018. Data linkage series no. 25. AIHW cat. no. CSI 27. Canberra: AIHW. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/child-protection/young-people-in-youth-justice-supervision-2014-18/
Braun S 2016. The European AVIDICUS projects: Collaborating to assess the viability of video-mediated interpreting in legal proceedings. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 4(1): 173–180
Braun S & Taylor J 2011. Videoconference and remote interpreting in criminal proceedings. Guildford: University of Surrey
Children’s Court of Queensland 2019. Children’s Court of Queensland annual report 2018–19. https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/about/publications
Cooper P & Mattison M 2017. Intermediaries, vulnerable people and the quality of evidence: An international comparison of three versions of the English intermediary model. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 21(4): 351–370
Cooper P & Wurtzel D 2013. A day late and a dollar short: In search of an intermediary scheme for vulnerable defendants in England and Wales. Criminal Law Review 1: 1–19
Courier Mail 2019. Strip-search trauma at youth detention. Courier Mail, 17 August
Donnelly N 2018. The impact of audio visual links (AVL) in courtrooms on prison transport costs. Bureau Brief no. 137. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research
Donoghue J 2017. The rise of digital justice: Courtroom technology, public participation and access to justice. Modern Law Review 80(6): 995–1025
Eades D 2015. Taking evidence from Aboriginal witnesses speaking English: Some sociolinguistic considerations. Precedent 126: 44–47
Eades D 1992. Aboriginal English and the law: Communicating with Aboriginal English speaking clients: A handbook for legal practitioners. Brisbane: Queensland Law Society
EHRC (Equality and Human Rights Commission) 2020. Inclusive justice: A system designed for all. London: EHRC. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/inclusive-justice-system-designed-all
Ericson R & Baranek P 1982. The ordering of justice: A study of accused persons as dependants in the criminal process. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
Fielding N, Braun S, Hieke G & Mainwaring C 2020. Video Enabled Justice evaluation: University of Surrey independent evaluation final report. Guildford: Sussex Police & Crime Commissioner/University of Surrey
Fowler Y 2013. Non-English-speaking defendants in the magistrates court: A comparative study of face-to-face and prison video link interpreter-mediated hearings in England (Doctoral thesis). Aston University, Birmingham, UK
Gibbs P 2017. Defendants on video: Conveyor belt justice or a revolution in access? London: Transform Justice
Harris M 2018. 'They just don’t understand what’s happened or why': A report on child defendants and video links. London: UK Standing Committee for Youth Justice. https://www.ayj.org.uk/news-content/they-just-dont-understand-whats-happened-or-why-an-ayj-report-on-child-defendants-and-video-links
Hatzistergos J 2008. The virtues of audiovisual links in the courtroom: The NSW Attorney General defends the use of AVL technology in the state’s administration of justice. Law Society Journal 46(6): 57–59
Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission 2015. Audio-video appearances in juvenile court. http://ijjc.illinois.gov/publications/audio-video-appearances-juvenile-court
Judicial College of Victoria 2020. Coronavirus and the courts. https://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/resources/coronavirus-and-courts
Kashyap K et al. 2017. Court-custody audio visual links: Designing for equitable justice experience in the use of court custody video conferencing. Sydney: University of Technology Sydney
Kippen N et al. 2018. Language diversity, language disorder, and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder among youth sentenced to detention in Western Australia. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 61: 40–49
LaVigne M & Van Rybroek G 2011. Breakdown in the language zone: The prevalence of language impairments among juvenile and adult offenders and why it matters. UC Davis Journal of Juvenile Law & Policy 15(1): 37–123
Legal and Social Issues Committee, Parliament of Victoria 2018. Inquiry into youth justice centres in Victoria: Final report. Melbourne: Victorian Parliament
Licoppe C 2015. Video communication and ‘camera actions’: The production of wide video shots in courtrooms with remote defendants. Journal of Pragmatics 76: 117–134
Liefaard T 2016. Child-friendly justice: Protection and participation of children in the justice system. Temple Law Review 88(4): 905–921
MacKeith W & Walker B 2013. Still a travesty: Justice in immigration bail hearings. Bail Observation Project
MacKeith W & Walker B 2011. Immigration bail hearings: A travesty of justice? Observations from the public gallery. London: Campaign to Close Campsfield. https://bailobs.org/resources/
McKay C 2018. The pixelated prisoner: Prison video links, Court ‘appearance’ and the justice matrix. London: Routledge
McKay C 2016. Video links from prison: Permeability and the carceral world. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 5(1): 21–37
Moore S, Clayton A & Murphy H 2019. Seeing justice done: Courtroom filming and the deceptions of transparency. Crime, Media, Culture: An International Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741659019883764
Page E & Robertson C R 2016. Appearing in court via VL: Issues for young people. St Lucia: University of Queensland School of Law
Plotnikoff J & Woolfson R 2000. Evaluation of Video Link Pilot project at Manchester Crown Court: Final report. London: Home Office.
Queensland Department of Youth Justice 2019. Youth justice pocket stats 2018–19. https://www.cyjma.qld.gov.au/youth-justice/resources
Rossner M, Tait D, McKimmie B & Sarre R 2017. The dock on trial: Courtroom design and the presumption of innocence. Journal of Law and Society 44(3): 317-344
Rowden E 2018. Distributed courts and legitimacy: What do we lose when we lose the courthouse? Law, Culture and the Humanities 14(2): 263–281
Rowden E, Wallace A, Tait D, Hanson M & Jones D 2013. Gateways to justice: Design and operational guidelines for remote participation in court proceedings. Sydney: University of Western Sydney
SCEPA (Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs) 2011. Report 23. Inquiry into the Transportation of Detained Persons: The implementation of the coroner’s recommendations in relation to the death of Mr Ward and related matters. Perth: WA Legislative Council
SCRGSP (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision) 2019. Report on government services 2019. Canberra: Productivity Commission. https://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2019/justice/corrective-services
Snow P 2019. Speech-language pathology and the youth offender: Epidemiological overview and roadmap for future speech-language pathology research and scope of practice. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 50(2): 1–16
Tasmania Law Reform Institute 2018. Facilitating equal access to justice: An intermediary/communication assistant scheme for Tasmania? Final report. Hobart: Tasmania Law Reform Institute
Tasmania Law Reform Institute 2016. Facilitating equal access to justice: An intermediary/communication assistant scheme for Tasmania? Issues Paper No. 22. Hobart: Tasmania Law Reform Institute
Terry M, Johnson S & Thompson P 2010. Virtual Court pilot: Outcome evaluation. Ministry of Justice Research Series 21/10. London: Ministry of Justice
UN General Assembly 1989. Convention on the rights of the child, opened for signature 20 November 1989, 1557 UNTS 3 (entered into force 2 September 1990)
VSAC (Victoria Sentencing Advisory Council) 2019. ‘Crossover kids’: Vulnerable children in the youth justice system. Report 1: Children who are known to Child Protection among sentenced and diverted children in the Victorian Children’s Court. Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council
Wallace A 2008. ‘Virtual justice in the bush’: The use of court technology in remote and regional Australia. Journal of Law Information and Science 19: 1–21
Wallace A, Roach Anleu S & Mack K 2019. Judicial engagement and AV links: Judicial perceptions from Australian courts. International Journal of the Legal Profession 26(1): 51–67
Walsh T 2018. Video links in youth justice proceedings: When rights and convenience collide. Journal of Judicial Administration 27 (4) 161–181
Webster C 2009. Out of sight, out of mind: A case study of bail efficiency in an Ontario video remand court. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 21(1): 103–126
Youth Justice Board 2019. Youth Justice Statistics 2017/18 England and Wales. Statistics Bulletin, 31 January 2019. London: Ministry of Justice
Youth Justice Board 2016. Youth Justice Board position statement on young people appearing in court via video link. London: Ministry of Justice