E-ViVi examines virtual hearings and videorecorded interviews
Over the past two years, the research project E-ViVi – Enhancing Videorecorded Interviews and Virtual Hearings in Europe has examined how virtual hearings and videorecorded interviews are used in criminal proceedings and how digitalisation affects those involved in the legal process. Last week, researchers, practitioners and other stakeholders gathered at the project's final conference in Helsinki, where the findings and recommendations were presented and discussed.
The project brings together researchers and organisations from Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands and aims to develop evidence-based recommendations for how digital forms of participation can be used in a safe and fair way.
Lisa Flower and Tove Westberg at the Department of Sociology have worked on the Swedish part of the project. The study of virtual hearings is based on 267 survey responses, 36 interviews and observations of 30 court hearings in Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands. Participants included judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers and representatives of victim support organisations.
Judges more critical than lawyers
The findings show that experiences of remote participation vary both between countries and across professional groups. In the Swedish survey, judges were more likely than lawyers to perceive a decline in communication during virtual hearings.
At the same time, there was a clear preference for in-person participation in certain situations. When Swedish judges and lawyers were asked to imagine themselves taking part in a trial, the preference for physical attendance was particularly strong in the role of defendant. In that scenario, 74 per cent of judges and 85 per cent of lawyers said they would choose to attend in person.
Safe and meaningful participation requires more than technology
E-ViVi shows that the issue is not simply whether the technology works. When a person participates through a screen, communication and interaction in the courtroom also change. Things that may seem relatively straightforward during in-person participation, such as signalling a lack of understanding, asking for a break or communicating with a lawyer, need to be made clearer in remote settings.
Yet, 95 per cent of the Swedish respondents reported that they had received no training or specific guidance on virtual hearings. The findings therefore suggest that the use of the technology has become normalised more quickly than knowledge of how to use it effectively.
The project's European recommendations therefore stress that the suitability of remote participation should be assessed on an individual basis. Participants, technology and surroundings need to be properly prepared, and privacy, security, confidential communication and access to support must be ensured even when participation takes place remotely. The hearing itself also needs to be adapted to the video format.
"The fact that a video link is technically possible does not automatically mean that it is appropriate. Our findings show that we need to focus both on the technology itself and on the conditions for participation: Can the person see, hear and understand what is happening, and are they genuinely able to make their voice heard?"
Lisa Flower, Associate Professor of Sociology at Lund University
Remote participation also offers important benefits
The project also shows that remote participation can offer significant advantages. It can reduce the need for travel, improve safety and make it easier for people to participate in proceedings if they experience fear or face other barriers to physical attendance. The challenge is therefore not to choose between digital and in-person participation in general, but to create the conditions needed to determine when and how remote participation can be used in a safe, fair and meaningful way.
