Since the COVID pandemic, contemporary forms of technologies have revolutionized
many aspects of society, one of these being the legal profession. In particular, “virtual
courtrooms” (or electronic hearings) have become popularized after face-to-face
hearings became increasingly difficult to operate due to safety guidelines and
restrictions. However, recently there has been significant discourse regarding this
practice’s drawbacks and advantages, and even whether this COVID-era conception
should even continue.
Positively speaking, virtual courtrooms are extremely useful for participants that are
affected with mobility issues or live far away from a physical courtroom. Due to their
digitally accessible nature, even participants with family commitments or financial
strain can be able to attend a court hearing, increasing equitable access to justice for
those who live in regional areas, accessing courts remotely increases equal access to
justice opportunities
However, technology is a double-edged sword, especially when referring to the
technological gap on people in disadvantaged, low socio-economic or minority groups.
For example, technology can impose severe restrictions on accessing opportunities for
justice on individuals living in rural areas or with poor internet connection. Furthermore,
technological issues can directly impact the efficiency and legitimacy of the hearing, as
audio or visual impairments can delay trials, degrade the quality of important evidence
to be presented and exacerbate the stress of all parties.
In serious cases, online courtrooms are vulnerable to hackers or cyber-attacks, that can
severely compromise the integrity and privacy of the trial. There is no doubt that as
technology becomes increasingly advanced, infiltrators and malware will too, and we
need to find an effective method to address this looming threat.
Before, integrating virtual courtrooms fully into our justice system, it is imperative to
address concerns regarding the digital divide and technological issues to ensure that
our trials stay impartial, equitable and functional.