PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING AN eAppeal: THE BRITISH COLUMBIA EXPERIENCE

Tim Outerbridge, Law Officer, BC Court of Appeal

Andrew Clark, Consultant

Introduction: BC eCourt Project eCourt is a capital funded project in

partnership with Court Services & the Judiciary.

eAppeal is part of larger eCourt project in British Columbia.

eAppeal is a “proof of concept” to test the effectiveness of courtroom processes and technologies.

eCourt: Courtroom & Registry

Introduction: eAppeal

1. Why: Why does it make sense to conduct an eAppeal?

2. What: How did we come up with and plan the eAppeal process?

3. How: How did we evaluate the program once the appeal was completed?

Why Conduct an eAppeal?

Because it’s Simpler: Can be easier to organise than a trial.

Because It Efficient: With the right case, net cost savings to the parties and the court.

Because it Achieves Strategic Goals: An investment in future simplicity and efficiency.

Strategic Goals

Test the effectiveness of potential eCourt processes and technologies.

To evaluate how the appellate process works when a proceeding at trial was conducted electronically.

To construct a protocol to be used for all eAppeals, rather than just a “one-off procedure.”

Planning Procedure

Examine as three sets of needs:

Part 1, Front End Priorities: Working with counsel, court administration to devise a process to get the records to the court.

Part 2, Back End Priorities: Working with judges, court administration to receive, work up and store the materials.

Part 3, Presentation: Working with all parties to prepare the courtroom presentation.

Planning Procedure

Each part planned using same process:

1. Consultation2. Priorities3. Solution/technology

Solutions driven by needs, not technology.

Front End: Consultation

Recognise the importance of consultation up front.

Conducted informal consultation with counsel, court administration and judges to devise a “wish list” of priorities for each.

Front End: Consultation

Front End: Rank/Compare Priorities

Found that many court priorities matched counsel’s priorities:

1. Material needs to be linked and indexed to allow ease of access and research

2. Simple interface for highlighting, annotating, taking notes

3. Inexpensive / accessible: can sell to clients / public

Front End: Develop Protocol/Tech

Indexed, Linked, Supports Preparation of Case Minimise documents & reduce overlap.

Simple Interface Recognise robust set of tools presently outside skill

level of judges.

Accessible/Inexpensive What is the minimum we can spend to accomplish

goals.

Front End: The Protocol

Submissions to the court build on each other and remain static once filed. No need for duplication.

  Appellant begins, constructs majority of binder,

including appeal book (trial record). Circulated.

At the end, Respondent files complete eAppeal record.

The result should be a fully linked electronic binder

The Protocol

Jan 2012: Appellant contacts counsel: agree on contents of record and authorities

March 2012: Appellant constructs and serves: Electronic Factum, record & authorities

June 2012: Respondents & interveners append their factums, linking to record & authorities

Front End: The Technology

Nothing commercially that suited needs Usually too robust/complex/designed for trial

Opted for simple PDF format for several reasons: Technology already being used by counsel “Industry standard” – scalable, storable Inexpensive

Examples / Demonstration

Challenges

Problem 1: Getting counsel to work together. Solution: Case management

Problem 2: Formatting/inconsistencies in style. Solution: Oversight by court staff.

Problem 3: Diverse sets of technical competencies. Solution: Allow some paper for those who

need it.

Back End: Consultation

Most judges unfamiliar with the technology – would require extensive training.

But... would not work on appeal until the same month as the hearing.

Records managers required improved infrastructure for receiving and storing eAppeal materials.

Back End: Rank/Compare Priorities

Found that many court administration priorities could also be addressed:

Ease of storage and management Integration with current practices Long term storage – is the electronic copy

the “original” copy?

Rank/Compare Priorities

Training. Graduated process of education – an initial seminar, follow-up private sessions. Judicial IT “on call” to deal with problems in the

lead up to the appeal

Receipt & Storage. Less of a priority. Will become more important as protocol is standardised.

Presentation: Consultation

Both judges and counsel wanted simple courtroom layout to display of PDFs.

Judges required separate workspace, wanted to be able to bring their annotated materials into the courtroom.

Judges wanted to be able to annotate in the courtroom.

Presentation: Courtroom Layout

Centered around a “presentation” source computer, controlled at lectern, with screens producing a mirror-image on bench and counsel tables.

Counsel choose whether to use PC (with assistant/junior) or laptop on lectern as they present.

Judges and other counsel have eAppeal binder on laptops for private viewing and annotating.

Presentation Computer

View from the Bench

View of the “5 Judge Division”

Evaluation

Lessons Learned