1. ICT4Judiciary current challanges francesco.contini@irsig.cnr.it Research Institute on Judicial Systems National Research Council of Italy IRSIG-CNR https://www.irsig.cnr.it https://cnr-it.academia.edu/FrancescoContini 1 Improvement of the Electronic Court Register Information System (ECRIS)” June 8-9 2014 Bucharest

2. From case-tracking to Integrated CJ Judges/Pros ecutors Clerks/staff National Agencies Governance Administrators Case management systems Full business CMS Management info systems 3 4 Integrated J. network 6 2 Case tracking EU MS EU data interchange 7 Lawyers Public access 1 5

3. Step 1: From paper dockets to case tracking Functions of CT systems: – Keep track of main procedural steps (ReGe) – Limited automation Users: – Clerks, administrative staff ICT and institutions: – Different systems for different functions (ReGe +Res Ita) – Different systems for different kinds of PPO (Mini + Micro, Fr) Development barriers: – Lack of knowledge, experience, understanding Limits: – Systems heterogeneity, maintenance, integration 3

4. Steps 2 & 3: From Case Trackingto CMS & MIS Functions of CMS – Large scale automation (procedures) – Support of active case management (active, deadlines, tasks generators, statistics) Users: – Managers, clerks, staff (limited prosecutors and judges) ICT and institutions: – The same system is used by all prosecutor’s offices (courts) statewide Barriers : – Authority and power (different PPO…, different courts) – Procedural and data standardisation Limits : – Limited involvement of prosecutor and judges – Data are underutilized for governance purposes 4

5. Step 4: full business Case Management Systems Functions of full business CMS : – Support and management of the workflow of the court – Support in the preparation and management of documents (systematic reuse of CMS data to prepare docs) – Paper based docs, but also digital docs Users: – Individual prosecutors’ and judges, courts and prosecutors’ office managers, clerks, staff ICT and institutions: – The same system is used by all prosecutor’s offices and courts statewide, Ministry, Judicial Council; Prosecutors’ supervisory boards Barriers : – Authority and power (different PPO… courts) – Procedural and data standardisation – Involvement of judges and prosecutors 5

6. Developing CMS Some key issues Main functionsFunctional advantages*Key problems Case tracking Enter and read the data from various working-stations; Time saved in searching the data Data and procedural standardisation, Case management Improved statistical reporting; automatic monitoring of procedural deadlines Data and procedural standardisation, poor data set legacy systems, integration of multiple systems Office automation Printout of standard documents Court forms standardisation Procedural workflow (Full B) Support the workflow during the entire procedure Involvement of judges / prosecutors 6

7. Functions – Establish a digital channel of communication: courts to users (prosecutors to users) – Access to case related/procedural data (collected in CMS), CMS adds-on – Court websites – Email and SMS From CMS to public access – case listing, status of proceedings, next scheduled event, names of the parties and of the judge – Which kind of access? Public and open? Limited to the case parties? Which kind of security measures? Step 5:Public access 7

8. Public access Main functionsFunctional advantagesKey problems Court website Provide general information about court and judicial procedure easing access to justice Regular update of the website; Consistencies between the websites of different courts Public access to case related information Provide case related information to interested parties increasing access to justice Maintain and promptly update a reliable CMS; Find an appropriate balancing between privacy and access to justice Short message service (SMS) Provide prompt case related info to subscribers Updated CMS; Privacy concerns 8

9. Step 6: From CMS to “Integrated Justice Network” Functions of the “Integrated CJ Net”: – Electronic data/documents, exchange/sharing across the Criminal Justice (Sakari, FIN; CJS, EN) Users: – Potentially every actor in the Criminal Justice network ICT and institutions: – Different interests and priorities within the agencies of the criminal justice network Barriers: – Authority and power – Data and procedural standardisation – Heterogeneity and technical integration 9

10. Justice system: network of independent organisations involved in the daily exchange of data and documents (paper) Challenge: interoperability Problems: legacy sys, closed standard, goals Sakari (Fin): – Connects prosecutors and courts – Unique workflow – Docs editing embedded into the application – Police CMS to Sakari – Police data checked, integrated and merged into docs the prosecutor can edit (text bank) – Secure email to exchange case related docs – Prosecutor can access court calendar – Feedback from the court through Sakari Integrated Justice chain 10

11. Multitude of CMS, no interoperability New radical project: idea of “electronic file” from police to prisons + lawyers + clients + payments Unisys wins the tender (2001): – standardize the tools available – develop the electronic case file – provide a number of integrated management tools Development: top down specifications, and users requirements First demo (2004): neither reliable nor friendly nor secure Remedial plan Just debt recovery functionalities (2006) MJ cancel the contract, Unisys files a case (paper filing) against the MJ Integrated justice chain Phenix 11

12. Single CMS for the Criminal Justice Network 20 years ago a state wide CMS was utopian Now – State wide CMS as a rule in many EU countries – CMS serving two different actors (in some countries) – Projects of integrated criminal justice systems PoliceProsecutorsCourtsPrisons Finland: Sakari Denmark: POLSAS England and Wales: CJSE  Tomorrow: –Full implementation of integrated criminal justice systems at the national level –EU cross country information exchange 12

13. Integrated Justice chain Main functionsFunctional advantagesKey problems Data interop. between ag. Compass Data interoperability between CMS reduces the costs of data entry and increases data reliability Procedural standardisation, Data reliability (need of strong data entry policies and quality insurance) Institutional collaboration between public sector agencies Integrated application Sakari (Finland) The management of the workflow (data and document), among different organisations allows an efficient and reliable management of the entire judicial proceeding. This may enable costs and time savings, and also increase transparency of judicial operation. As in the previous case, plus: direct involvement of judges and prosecutors (key users of the systems); Need of detailed standardisation of court and prosecutors forms; Deep changes in working practices of police officers, prosecutors and judges (stated problems of judicial independence); Legal changes at procedural and organisational level may be required. “All encompassing” systems None so far. The total integration between agencies, and the full digitalisation of proceedings is expected to provide huge improvements in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, timeliness, access, accountability etc. All the issues discussed in the previous cases plus: Need of top technical capabilities; Need of a complete reconfiguration of the justice chains; Problems of evolvability of the system once it has been implemented. Strong dependency by technical providers. Integrated justice transnational level (EPOC?) The electronic exchange of judicial data at transnational level is an emerging priority to coordinate the Need to establish new technical and legal standards, gateways and interfaces to allows the interoperability between different national systems 13

14. Step 7: EU cross country information exchange European Arrest Warrant – Schengen Information System European Court of Justice – E-Curia (e-filing at Curia since nov 2011) e-Codex www.e-codex.euwww.e-codex.eu – Development of Pilot application “to improving the cross border exchange of information in legal proceedings” 14

15. Small group Entire Organisation Inter- organisationa Green light (framework) None Deep seated Legal changes regulation Case tracking CMS Critical factors Law and Organisation Integrated CJ network EU data interchange Member States and EU 15

16. ICT and Justice: a story about … Growing standardisation of data and procedures Growing number of functions and agencies involved in the project Continuous challenge of the existing institutional and organizational landscape Tensions between different forces: Local solutions Low standardisation High specificity Proprietary Centralized solutions High standardisation Low specificity Shared 16