The Gazette 1992

GAZETTE

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1992

voted in its favour, and the only question that remains is how it can best be used. That it will be used is already accepted.

job, with the result that the court is likely to be presented with a more formidable matter to adjudi- cate than would be the case otherwise. There are many ways in which this may be illustrated. One example is provision to take evidence by telephone-video. If that is not per- mitted, then many will not call the evidence at all, not being willing to incur the cost. If it is allowed, it will save costs where the party was willing to bring that witness to the court, but at the same time, in other cases it will produce evidence to the court which otherwise would have been absent. Thus it will not lead to more expedition in disposal of cases, but will be more likely to lead to the attainment of justice. So too will the more general com- puterisation of the judicial process. That makes the issue of process more efficient and saves costs where there is a major litigation firm concerned. At the same time, it allows the small country firm, well away from any city where the court is found, to issue process and attend to the litigation from that distant place. The result may well be more litigation, rather than less. A final example lies in the use of the technology for storing, summaris- ing and analysing evidence. Without the technology, time constraints inherent in a trial may and often do prevent an exhaustive study of the evidence without the provision of a substantial team of lawyers. With the technology, a lesser team is able to handle the task. The result is that more is done. Once again, the court's time will not be saved; but every issue will be canvassed in greater depth. There are those who will find this unsatisfactory, and will say that the present process serves us well. Perfection cannot be attained in any process of dispute resolution, and if under the present system there is a concentration on what are described (hopefully!) as the

"ma i n issues", then there is nothing wrong with that. To that the answer is that it acts upon the supposition that there is a concen- tration on the main issue without all issues being known - a sort of chance which may be right in some cases but would be wrong in others. It also gives an added weapon to the litigant with the means to ensure adequate numbers of lawyers in his team against the litigant who has not such means. If the computer evens up such a match, then it has much to com- mend it. If the computer allows more comprehensive examination of matters than is otherwise the case, then the lawyer does his wo rk better, and j us t i ce is enhanced. Finally, there is nothing in this tech- nology that renders it more suitable for one part of the world rather than another. It does depend, of course, on there being a workable tele- phone system capable of handling computer data transmission. It depends on judicial systems having the money to invest in main frame computers. It depends on lawyers being able to afford a personal computer, or a lap top computer. It needs little else save for a wil- lingness to join the rest of the commercial and industrial world in its acceptance of computers. • T U R K S A N D C A I C OS I S L A N DS A N D T H E I SLE O F M A N Samuel McCleery Attorney - at - Law and Solicitor of PO Box 127 in Grand Turk,Turks and Caicos Islands, British West Indies and at 1 Castle Street, Castletown, Isle of Man will be pleased to accept instructions generally from Irish Solicitors in the formation and administration of Exempt Turks and Caicos Island Companies and Non - Resident Isle of Man Companies as well as Trust Administration G. T Office:-

"The rapid acceptance

of

computer

technology

by the

whole community

means that

the jury has voted in its favour. ..."

The changes it effects on the trial process are not changes in the judical philosophy of the common law trial. There is no change in the adversarial process, though there is an undoubted advantage to the person with the technology as opposed to the person without it. There is no change in the onus or standard of proof, nor of the legal process by which the court de- termines the matter. Witnesses will still be examined and their credi- bility determined. What the changes do effect is the efficiency with which the judicial system as a whole and the trial in particular, is administered. "Effici- ency" should not be confused with speed of disposal of a matter. The trial process is more efficient because lawyers are able to attend to their tasks with fewer staff, and each task that involves communi- cation may be completed more ex- peditiously. But when it comes to the trial, the technology is unlikely to shorten the process. To the contrary, it is more likely to allow deeper analysis of the evidentiary issues and greater concentration of argument in support of a particular view of the facts. It assists in com- prehending all matters, not in re- ducing the issues, or allowing their more rapid disposal. Consequently, it is argued that the new technology benefits the trial process in attaining justice, and permits it to be achieved at lesser cost (at least in the interlocutory stages). The benefits to the lawyer are not illusory, but real. The sav- ings in costs in the employment of staff, and in the mechanics of litigation, are substantial. Equally, it allows the lawyer to do a better

Tel: 809 946 2818 Fax: 809 946 2819 I.O.M.Office:- Tel: 0624 822210 Telex : 628285 Samdan G Fax: 0624 823799

39