Online Courts and Private and Public Aspects of Open Justice: Enhancing Access to Court or Violating the Right to Privacy?

S. Ahmed
{"title":"Online Courts and Private and Public Aspects of Open Justice: Enhancing Access to Court or Violating the Right to Privacy?","authors":"S. Ahmed","doi":"10.17561/tahrj.v20.7516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As the technological revolution takes over the world, the justice system is also susceptible to change. The Online Court of England and Wales (‘OC’) is an example of such a step taken in that direction. However, some argue that this has vast implications on access to justice for the ‘digitally excluded’ or the Litigant-in-Persons (LIP). While this argument is warranted, it fails to address the two essential implications of Online Courts: First, the potential of online courts to enhance access to justice by legally empowering LIPs along with enhancing access to court for them (Private Aspect of open justice). Further, such access to court is enhanced for the general public and the media (Public Aspect of open justice) alike. Secondly, the threat of uncontrolled access to online proceedings facilitated by modern avenues like ‘live-streaming’ and ‘live-tweeting’, turning justice into a disruptive one. This article argues that OC is better placed at improving access to justice issues than physical courts, by enhancing both the private and public aspects of open justice. However, enhancing the public aspect also poses major threats to the Right to Privacy of individuals. Further, this article argues that a more nuanced approach towards a future technology-focused justice system needs to balance the public aspect of the open justice principle with the Right to privacy. Hence, this article suggests that regulative and accountability measures like ‘penalty point systems’ should be placed right from the outset to prevent any leakage of sensitive data prompted by uncontrolled access to online courts.","PeriodicalId":164030,"journal":{"name":"The Age of Human Rights Journal","volume":"97 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Age of Human Rights Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17561/tahrj.v20.7516","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As the technological revolution takes over the world, the justice system is also susceptible to change. The Online Court of England and Wales (‘OC’) is an example of such a step taken in that direction. However, some argue that this has vast implications on access to justice for the ‘digitally excluded’ or the Litigant-in-Persons (LIP). While this argument is warranted, it fails to address the two essential implications of Online Courts: First, the potential of online courts to enhance access to justice by legally empowering LIPs along with enhancing access to court for them (Private Aspect of open justice). Further, such access to court is enhanced for the general public and the media (Public Aspect of open justice) alike. Secondly, the threat of uncontrolled access to online proceedings facilitated by modern avenues like ‘live-streaming’ and ‘live-tweeting’, turning justice into a disruptive one. This article argues that OC is better placed at improving access to justice issues than physical courts, by enhancing both the private and public aspects of open justice. However, enhancing the public aspect also poses major threats to the Right to Privacy of individuals. Further, this article argues that a more nuanced approach towards a future technology-focused justice system needs to balance the public aspect of the open justice principle with the Right to privacy. Hence, this article suggests that regulative and accountability measures like ‘penalty point systems’ should be placed right from the outset to prevent any leakage of sensitive data prompted by uncontrolled access to online courts.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
网络法院与公开司法的私人和公共方面:促进诉诸法庭还是侵犯隐私权?
随着技术革命席卷全球,司法系统也容易发生变化。英格兰和威尔士在线法院(“OC”)就是朝着这个方向迈出的这一步的一个例子。然而,一些人认为,这对“被数字排斥”的人或当事人(LIP)获得司法救助有巨大影响。虽然这一论点是有根据的,但它未能解决在线法院的两个基本含义:首先,在线法院通过在法律上赋予lip权力以及增加他们获得法院的机会来增强诉诸司法的潜力(公开司法的私人方面)。此外,一般公众和媒体(公开司法的公共方面)都有更多诉诸法庭的机会。其次,“流媒体直播”和“推特直播”等现代渠道为不受控制地访问在线诉讼提供了便利,这将司法变成了破坏性的司法。本文认为,法团通过加强公开司法的私人和公共方面,比实体法庭更能改善诉诸司法的问题。然而,加强公共方面也对个人隐私权构成了重大威胁。此外,本文认为,对于未来以技术为中心的司法系统,一种更微妙的方法需要在公开司法原则的公共方面与隐私权之间取得平衡。因此,本文建议,应该从一开始就采取监管和问责措施,如“罚分制度”,以防止因不受控制地访问在线法院而导致敏感数据泄露。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Legal Protection of the Right to Freedom and Personal Integrity of the Citizens of Ukraine (Private and Public Aspect) In Search of Durable Solutions for Refugees in Indonesia: A State Security and Human Rights Protection Approach Bottling the Criminal Contempt Law – A Search for ‘Intention’ in ‘Scandalizing the Court’ Right to Repatriation of Abandoned Seafarers: A Study in Light of Maritime Labour Convention 2006, and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 The Right to Universal Accessibility
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1