Unplugging the Courtroom

With journalists now Twittering from at least two high-profile Canadian criminal trials (see previous article), public attention has focused on the use of mobile technology in the courtroom. (In the U.S., live blogging and wireless access from trials have been noted since at least 2003.)

There are obviously some fascinating and controversial issues that need to be considered as we get used to the exciting idea of an unplugged court. One of these issues has recently been addressed by the Judges Technology Advisory Committee (JTAC), a national group of federally appointed judges and technology advisers that is a committee of the Canadian Judicial Council.

In August 2008, the CJC released a “Model Wireless Networking Policy for Canadian Courts.” The policy attempts to answer these basic questions:

1. When lawyers, journalists and members of the public enter any courthouse in Canada, should they be able to use their laptops, and if so, should they be permitted (if not encouraged) to use wireless internet access?
2. What is the court’s role, if any, in supporting or managing such access?

“WiFi” hotspots allow anyone with a properly equipped laptop, smartphone or similar device to send and receive email, browse the internet, or log into litigation databases and office networks. But wireless networking also has a poor reputation for security. In many situations, information sent over a public wireless connection is accessible to people with devices that intercept digital signals.

JTAC decided to promote the safety of an unplugged environment and encourage courts to adopt a sensible wireless policy. The policy tries to balance the growing demand for internet access in the courtroom against the obvious requirements for security, privacy, and the effective administration of justice.

The policy basically supports the use of wireless networking in the courtroom by anyone participating in legal proceedings, subject to “acceptable” use only, and of course, to the discretion of the judge. “Unacceptable” use is that which causes a disturbance, interferes with court operations, or is offensive.

While judges always have the ability to control behaviour in the courtroom, the policy provides guidelines for sanctions: “Anyone engaging in unacceptable use may face sanctions including forfeiture of equipment or ejection from the courthouse.” In other words, those who abuse the unplugged courtroom may get themselves unplugged in the process!

To download a copy of the policy, go to http://tinyurl.com/cv9pm8.

Martin Felsky has been a member of the Judges Technology Advisory Committee of the Canadian Judicial Council since its establishment in 1987. Dr. Felsky offers workshops on electronic discovery awareness for lawyers and can be reached at mfelsky@felsky.com.