One of my enduring interests is how we might use technology in the court room to help us do our job better.

Technology is a bit like fire: a good servant, but poor master. If we use it, we must use it because it helps achieve a better result. It’s a means to an end, not an end in itself. If we spend time fiddling with connections and software, or our head down in a notebook rather than engaging the Bench, we won’t be effective advocates. If we can help visualise and simplify complex information, we might be better advocates.

American lawyers seem to be leading the way in the use of technology in court.

Scene Systems uses animation technology to recreate crime scenes, accidents and other incidents. Have you seen it’s impressive US Airways Flight 1549 Reconstruction, the airliner that made an emergency landing on the Hudson River, New York? If not, here it is.

And blogs such as PDF Lawyers, Home Office Lawyer, and The Mac Lawyer are choc-full of good legal applications of technology.

Australian lawyers are seeing the benefits too. A few examples:

• Professor George Hampel encourages multimedia in courts. (In case you missed it, have another look Readers’Course Revisited mentioned in Readers prepare to turn 30.
• Peter Black is well known for his use of electronic media for law
• In pursuit of relevance is a useful Australian blog on electronic evidence
• Australian company Ringtail Solutions created an electronic document management system successfully used in the Longford Gas Explosion and Metropolitan Ambulance Service Royal Commissions. (I’m convinced I remember reading about it in The Age at the time, but blessed if I can find an electronic version of the article. It’s mentioned in the Law Reform Committee’s Technology and the Law and the AIC’s Technology and the Judiciary. Ringtail was so successful it was bought by a big international company, FTI technology, and is now used all over the world in large complex civil actions.)

We can make good use of technology in our jurisdiction too.

One simple example is a timeline.

Let’s say a person accused of driving when disqualified relies on the Proudman v Dayman defence, claiming, “I didn’t know I’d lost my licence.” (Mind you, a licence is a legal authority to drive on public roads. If I believe I am legally authorised to drive when in fact I am not, is that a factual or legal mistake? May be a topic for a future post…)

Here’s an example based on several cases I’ve seen or heard, of multiple allegations of disqualified driving stretching over an extended period. The initial disqualification occurs at a s 37 hearing. At first glance, the claimed defence seems hard to rebut. But, a timeline easily shows only the first charge might be defeated by that charge.

(View a PDF of the timeline, or larger format of the movie.)

You can create time lines using software such as Timeline3D or SmartDraw.

Another easy-to-use bit of technology is Google Maps.

You can use it to provide a traditional map view of a relevant area, such as Parliament House.

And in most metropolitan areas, you can also use Street View.