The new global imperative to modernise justice systems

Current state and challenges

A key element of reform is creating the right structure and mechanisms for effective collaboration among prosecutors, judges, lawyers, police and litigants. Collaboration was important before COVID-19, but the pandemic made it even more of a priority. Simply accessing and adjusting to virtual services and proceedings, with participants in multiple remote locations, has required coordination (and patience). More consequentially, successful collaboration will be essential to guarantee proceedings are fair, accessible, transparent and trustworthy. An interviewee from a Canadian provincial Ministry of Justice and Attorney General's office states: ‘Maintaining the collaborative relationship across the different parts of the sector was one of the best results of the pandemic, and now we need to keep that in place.’ 

In Belgium, for example, shortly before the pandemic struck, the nation’s Federal Public Service for Justice launched an online portal, called Just-on-webOpens in a new window, where citizens can conduct basic transactions such as paying fines. In the future, more services will be available on this portal, including accessing court records and submitting digitised documents. ‘Cooperation between the public prosecutor, courts, the department of finance and the police has greatly improved,’ says an interviewee involved with the programme.

An important role for leaders is fostering collaboration in order to ensure that all stakeholders within justice systems have access to the information they need when they need it, an aspiration that requires robust IT systems. Some countries are already making strides in this area. In June 2020, the Dutch government approved almost US$225 million in funding for digital reform of the Netherlands’ criminal justice system, coordinated by the Ministry of Justice and Security. Under the programme, partners within the criminal justice system will share documents regarding all cases digitally instead of on paper, and video and audio material will be accessible for all stakeholders. The government is also launching a portal for citizens to take required actions in criminal cases. As a result, civilians will have better access to information, and trial processes will be more efficient. 

Similarly, the UK embarked on a £1 billion transformation programme in 2018 to modernise and digitise court services.

Current state and challenges

The pandemic forced justice systems worldwide to shut down most in-person court proceedings and legal services in early 2020 and shift to online alternatives, with very little notice. The majority of interviewees cited investments in technological tools during the pandemic—such as laptops, routers, expanded access to broadband internet and public web portals—to assist legal professionals and citizens in pivoting to remote work, digital hearings and online services, while keeping all information and proceedings secure. Interviewees also appreciated COVID-related budget allocations for staff hiring and training and legal aid to cover citizens’ court costs. ‘Teleconferences became part of our daily operations,’ says an adviser to Belgium’s minister of justice. 

Now, as with the private sector, organisations are wrestling with the return to in-person proceedings and how this will change operations yet again. Technology can support hybrid processes, but leaders must think hard about how it can be used to build trust, rather than detract from it. Understanding the positive outcomes technology has enabled for legal professionals as well as participants (citizens) is a critical factor to also consider, so that they can be preserved, continued and expanded.   

‘Some people are nostalgic and want to go back to the way things were,’ a deputy attorney general in Canada says. ‘They don’t want to do technology all day. Our concern is about retrenching to the old ways. We want to sustain the movement forward.’ Leaders must consider whether a return to long-established practices works to preserve tradition or best serves the needs of citizens and legal professionals. 

The shift to e-courts, digital hearings and more accessible online services gives organisations significant flexibility. The head of Innovation and Courts Development at the Norwegian Courts Administration (NCA) reports that its judiciary now operates physical, virtual and hybrid hearings. An official with the Council for the Judiciary in the Netherlands estimates that files are digitised in 98% of its criminal cases, and an online hearing could be done for every kind of case. 

But although digitisation can streamline many aspects of judicial processes, it can also create unexpected choke points. The NCA leader notes that case backlogs have worsened in recent years: ‘The main challenge is that some cases are more complex and more parties are involved, increasing the need to translate case material’ through digitisation. Other technology solutions, such as digital transcription services, pose a potential solution. A court services interviewee in Canada points out that backlogs, along with the lack of transparency in some online hearings, have ‘an impact on trust and confidence in the system’ and can even create community safety concerns. In addition, the pandemic required rapid and widespread digitisation to keep the justice system operating, and that meant some inefficient processes and systems were digitised rather than rethought. 

A professor who specialises in the social effectiveness of justice worries more broadly that digital hearings can reduce transparency about some decisions and underlying motivations. ‘Online hearings can really increase access to justice,’ he says, ‘but they’re not appropriate for all cases.’ Clear criteria need to be in place to determine which cases are suitable for the virtual realm. 

Additionally, virtual proceedings have highlighted the need for internet access and digital literacy to guarantee that citizens, including those in remote and rural areas, can fully participate. In fact, technology access and digital literacy often have a direct correlation on trust in the rule of law. 

Several Dutch officials note that trust in the judiciary among citizens in the Netherlands is high overall, but less so among people in lower socioeconomic groups, who may use the required technology infrequently. As an official in the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security asks, ‘Are we as a legal system able to reach certain groups in society and make them feel that justice is there for them as well?’ Any shift to expand digital proceedings needs to be done in a thoughtful way to ensure that they are accessible to all.

Current state and challenges

Funding models at most justice organisations are based on raw outputs—typically with a focus on processing as many cases as possible. As one official tells us, ‘In the past, we had price agreements based on how many cases we would handle. If we didn’t finish those cases, we got less funding.’ These basic types of financial models don’t stimulate innovation or collaboration. They aren’t citizen-centric, and they don’t incentivise important outcomes, such as boosting public trust.  

Many investments made during the pandemic failed to address this issue, as they were focused primarily on technology. Consider a recent progress reportOpens in a new window of a justice reform programme in the UK that examines investments made during COVID-19. It states, ‘[T]he most resilient services are those where there has been investment, where we have introduced digital options for users, and new technology to facilitate alternative ways of working. The antiquated systems that necessitated the need for reform in the first place have been exposed as fragile in the face of an extremely challenging environment.’

A leader in a Canadian provincial Ministry of Justice and Attorney General's office overseeing tribunals expressed similar views. ‘Maintaining the collaborative relationship across the different parts of the [justice] sector was one of the best results of the pandemic,’ he says. He spent a year running a sector-wide working group that decided how best to allocate emergency funds for new justice initiatives. Looking ahead, though, he added that ‘we need to keep that [collaborative spirit] in place.’