Vision Realized one decade later

For 20 years I was involved with The Ben Graham Group, and during that time we worked with companies across Canada to better integrate: people, process and technology. In December of 2009, we articulated a vision for our client, Alberta Justice. In March 2020, an article appeared in The Edmonton Journal.

Both are replicated, below:

The Ben Graham Group Inc.

Alberta Justice Electronic Information Vision, December 16, 2009

Alberta Justice has a vision to maximize the use of audio, visual and information technology to capture, store and distribute information used to prosecute cases. All information is to be well organized and securely viewed only by authorized individuals. All processes used to capture, store and distribute this information must protect the basic principles of: Judicial independence; The right of the public to be safe; The Charter rights of an accused in criminal proceedings; and Society’s interest in having criminal matters, including bail and trial, being resolved in a reasonable time.

Benefits:

• Eliminate the inefficient and resource heavy processes required to manage paper files (“file pile management”).
• Dramatically reduce the movement of people (accused, defence, crown, judiciary, police witnesses, and public witnesses) through the many “stations” of the court processes.

Implementation:

This vision will be accomplished through an approach of continuous, radical and iterative change.

One Scenario

On December 15, 201x the EPS attended to an incident. The police took a subject into custody in the cruiser. The arresting officer than initiated an arrest record into the on-board terminal. An incident number was assigned by the police database. The subject was transported to the lock-up. Investigators remaining at the scene took photos and recorded video statements by witnesses. Back in the cruiser the digital photos and digital video recordings were uploaded to the records office at the police station. The clerk reviewed the records for clarity and linked them to the incident number. The officers also did audio recordings of their observations. A couple of officers wrote handwritten notes.

Back at the police station the subject was photographed and finger printed and this documentation was uploaded to the database. Charges were laid and recorded in the database. Only documents absolutely required by law were printed. Accused identification was verified. All information was uploaded to the incident number. When officers returned to the station they printed sticky backed barcodes with the incident number and attached them to their handwritten notes. The notes were then scanned and immediately linked to the number. The audio notebooks were uploaded also linked to the incident number.

At 3 A.M. the accused was brought into the video room at the police station. The presiding J.P. conducted the bail hearing from an office in her home. The duty crown attorney also chose to appear by video from his basement office. The J.P., the crown and the accused all had access to the electronic records that they were allowed to view.  The J.P. issued a series of orders, selecting from a predetermined menu. The accused was released on a promise to appear at the J.P video booth on February 1. The accused electronically signed the PTA and was released.

The day after the incident, a witness came into the police station and wrote out a statement. A bar code with the incident number was attached and the statement was scanned. Other hardcopy documents for evidence were bar coded and scanned. The originals were filed in a nearby filing room.

The crown office then redacted the evidence and created the disclosure. The disclosure was coded for release to the designated counsel. This designated counsel was able to view all disclosure on-line and was automatically notified when additional disclosure was attached.

On the first appearance date the accused arrived at the video booth. If necessary, the crown and defense counsel appeared by video. The J.P. also appeared by video. Since, in this case, the J.P. was not able to deal with the matter; the matter was queued for the next available sitting judge who was working from chambers. This judge appeared by video within minutes. Documents, as appropriate, were visible to the accused, crown, defence, judge/J.P. – all only seeing the subset of the documents that they were allowed to see.

The matter went to trial within the shortest period of time allowed by the law. On the day of trial, the accused appeared in the video booth at the court house in the company of a sheriff. The defence attorney appeared by video from her own office. The judge appeared by video from chambers. The crown attorney appeared by video from her office. The police witnesses appeared by video from the police station. Civilian witnesses appeared by video from a room at the courthouse accompanied by a representative from the Crown’s office. All records were accessible, electronically, as permitted. At the conclusion, the judge issued a number of orders selecting from a menu, and also chose to type in a few specific instructions.

NEXT CASE!

Implications

When this vision is fully implemented dramatic efficiencies will be realized by eliminating a great deal of travel time (even the travel time for a few floors) for police, defence, judiciary, and crown. Reducing the movement for accused will greatly improve safety and security. A significant amount of courtroom space will also be freed for other purposes.

The major impact of this vision will be on court services. Much of their work will be eliminated.

Historically, companies facing such an opportunity would try to implement the vision “quietly” so as not to have to deal with the reality that the work of large numbers of staff was to be eliminated. This approach is not recommended since:

• The rumor mill will announce the reality anyway
• The opportunity is lost to develop significant momentum by announcing the vision.

Recommended

• Develop the vision.
• Announce to everyone that there will be no loss of employment when the vision is implemented.
• Determine and advise the opportunities that may be offered to those who lose their work.
• Articulate the vision clearly and frequently. Develop momentum and excitement which encourages everyone to be part of implementing the most modern justice system on the planet.

From the Edmonton Journal, March 26, 2020

A potential upside of COVID-19? Dragging Alberta courts into the digital age

Author of the article:

Jonny Wakefield

For lawyers, the potential for a more nimble, modern court system is one of the COVID-19 pandemic’s few bright spots. ED KAISER ED KAISER / Ed Kaiser/Postmedia

Filing court documents over email. Teleconferencing. A judge presiding over a criminal case by video.

A few weeks ago, these innovations would have seemed far off to anyone familiar with Alberta’s hidebound courts system.

But faced with a global pandemic, Alberta’s courts are modernizing at a rate that is likely unprecedented.

For lawyers — many of whom are being forced to lay off staff — the potential for a more nimble, modern court system is one of the pandemic’s few bright spots.

“The overall lesson this COVID-19 crisis has demonstrated for me is how steps and evolutions we were told for years were much too difficult and much too expensive are now trivially simple,” said Edmonton criminal lawyer Paul Moreau.

Alberta’s courts have drastically scaled back hearings to avoid spreading COVID-19. The province’s superior court, the Court of Queen’s Bench, suspended all but emergency and urgent sittings on March 15. Alberta’s much more crowded provincial court followed suit the next day.

Much of the remaining work is being done remotely.

In what may be a first, provincial court Judge Donna Groves presided over a criminal proceeding by video from her home from March 17-23. Crown, defence and accused appeared in-person at the Edmonton law courts.

Justice ministry spokesman Jonah Mozeson said in an email that the first pilot was a “success,” and that the ministry and courts are looking at allowing other parties to appear remotely.

The Court of Queen’s Bench, meanwhile, is allowing lawyers to file documents by email (prior to the pandemic, the vast majority of filing was done in person or by fax.) At the Alberta Court of Appeal, cases are being heard by video or teleconference.

Moreau said a “virtual” docket court was held in Edmonton earlier this week.

“The prisoners are piped in by CCTV, the lawyers are on the telephone,” Moreau said. “I don’t know if they had a judge in the courtroom or if the judge was there by video. But it proved you can run a courtroom … with nobody physically in the room.”

Courts, probably more so than nearly any other institution, rely on tradition, said Edmonton lawyer Jay Krushell. They deal in case law, hard copies and signatures in ink.

“These are all legacy systems … that were developed before the internet, and people haven’t had the motivation to change them, because they work,” said Krushell, whose practice focuses on commercial lending. “They’re cumbersome and costly, but the downside of change is it’s a lot of work and costs money.”

They also stamp out fraud. Krushell said in-person meetings are the norm because lawyers have to verify their clients are who they say they are, while hard copies of documents protect against tampering.

Two years ago, Krushell and his partner, former city councillor Kim Krushell, began work ago on virtual meeting software that could meet those requirements for the legal system. The platform  — called TreeFort — verifies a client’s identity with information from credit reporting agencies, banks, and telecom companies. The software is currently being piloted with the Law Society of Alberta.

Interest in the technology has spiked during the COVID-19 pandemic. “This crisis has had a catastrophic effect on the legal profession,” Jay Krushell said. “All of those processes of handling paper and meeting with clients, we can’t do them now.”

Avnish Nanda hopes the pandemic-related changes stick. The Edmonton lawyer said some of the courts’ current practices don’t make sense, such as requiring lawyers to travel to far-flung courthouses for even brief matters. “If I’m in Edmonton and I have a court hearing in Calgary … I’ve got to go there, even if it’s a five-minute matter,” he said. “They won’t let me call in.”

He believes part of the problem is courts haven’t had the resources to digitize. “Successive governments have put it on the back-burner because of funding concerns,” he said.

In a statement, Mozeson said Alberta is spending $27 million on a project called “Justice Digital” to reduce court costs and make the justice system more efficient.