New Zealand Department for Courts

1. New Zealand Department for Courts Case Management System

2. Modernisation Project New Processes New Staff Roles Technology Within Constraints

3. Process and Role Design Aims • Staff – Proactive rather than Reactive • Aim to achieve Meaningful Events • Registry role • Individual staff responsibility

4. Practice Notes & Standards • Practice Notes in place in most jurisdictions and for most case types • Key Performance Indicators (Standards) have been developed for matters not covered by Practice Notes

5. EVENT SCHEDULED RECORD UPDATED CASE INITIATED RECORD UPDATED ISSUES ESCALATED COMPLIANCE MANAGED Process Roles Receiving & Processing Scheduling & Rostering Taking Court Case Progression • Record entered or updated at counter • Thorough, expert checking • Access to schedule whenever required • Update of record in court • Single point of contact • Reduced hand-overs • Active liaison with parties • Monitoring case to check progress • Early notification of issues to Judge • Improved information Technology Core CMS Scheduling & Rostering Update Case In Court Tasks and To Dos Document Management Create Case / Parties Assign Case to Staff Charges / Applications Orders / Sentences Remands / Warrants Register Appeals Judicial Rosters Court Rosters Schedule Hearings by Courtroom One screen “window” into core CMS functionality for speed of data entry System and / or manually generated Tasks to prompt (by exception) registry staff to take action or monitor for compliance Register Documents Create Expected Documents Service of Documents Document Location Outgoing Documents ROSTER COURTROOM/ CHAMBERS EVENT DIRECTIONS/ ORDERS MADE CASE DETERMINED Process The Operational Model Supported by Technology Enables Caseflow Management Registry Judicial

6. IT System • Support for new operational processes • Support for Caseflow Management

7. IT System Expectations • Expectation that data will be entered at the point at which it occurs • Aim is to have judges and staff confident that they can rely on the accuracy of the system and that it is up to date

8. Case Management System In this presentation illustrate: • Recording of Directions • Creation of Expected Documents resulting from those Directions • System monitoring for receipt of Expected Documents • System prompts when Expected Documents overdue

9. CMS Case Summary Screen shows current court and jurisdiction • Case Summary Screen also shows: • Type of Case • Current Case Track • Staff member responsible for case

10. Judicial Directions are Recorded Save Records each Direction • Drop Down List of all Scheduled Events – Select Relevant Date Drop Down List of DirectionsBased on Case Type Populates Direction Date; Effective From date; Judicial Officer

11. Add new Directions – Add button clears previous Direction and Prepopulates Event, Dates and Judicial Officer fields. User populates other fields. To schedule Next Event

12. User selects event type, required date, Judicial Officer, sets preferred status and selects to View Schedules

13. Courtroom Schedule finds suitable hearing activity and highlights in yellow Event is dragged from clipboard to relevant activity – then save

14. System populates Event Detail and Event is Saved

15. User may manually complete this screen or can ask the system to find suitable dates - not before the entered date

16. System returns up to three options. Selecting Next will populate the Event Detail screen.

17. New Directions can be added by selecting the New Direction Button All Directions on the Case can be viewed by selecting the Direction List button The latest Direction is displayed on the Case Summary

18. Users can view each Direction by selecting the Details button

19. Users can navigate (from any screen) to the Document Register using the Level 2 Menu

21. CMS registers the required documents as “Expected” with their due date Tool tips are used (throughout CMS) to display text where there is insufficient field space CMS creates tasks to advise staff when expected documents are not filed by their due date or an earlier prompt date

22. Users can navigate (from any screen) to the Case Task List using the Level 2 Menu

23. The tasks associated with the Expected Documents appear in the Case Task list if the documents are not registered by the due date or the prompt date They will also display in the Task Owner’s personal Task List

24. Various views of the Case Task List can be displayed using filters The Status of Tasks may be updated by the system or by the user Tasks can be added by the user

25. Task details can be viewed

26. The Task Owner can record notes for each task

27. The Expected Document entry can be used to register the document when it is filed. The relevant document is selected and the Next button opens the Register Document Window.

28. Select Filer from Drop Down List Indicate where document is held on physical file Link document to Case Entities, as required and Save

29. Registration of the document clears it from the Expected view in the Document Register Registration of the document updates the related Task to Complete

30. The task for the Expected Document no longer appears as an open Task.

31. The Document Register displays all documents registered (or expected) for a case. In this case all documents associated with the three applications are displayed.

32. A Judge or Staff Member can use the filter to identify the documents associated with any of the applications in the case. This is used if only one of the applications is to be heard at the next event.

33. Computerised Case Management The Judicial Perspective

34. Outline • Judicial Concerns for Automated Systems • Benefits for the Judiciary from Case Management System • Utilisation of CMS by the Judiciary • Conclusion

35. Judicial Concerns • Confidence in the ease of transfer from one jurisdiction to another • Standardised work systems between jurisdictions - a common judicial interface • Standard case management principles applicable across all jurisdictions • An integrated diary system

36. Problems that CMS Could Resolve • High staff turnover leading to the use of inexperienced staff; • Missing or chaotic files; • Court orders or judgments which took too long to be drawn and were often drawn incorrectly; • Lack of proper administrative support for the Judiciary; • Lack of Judicial continuity in case management; • Delays in listing due to insufficient Judges requiring cancellation of Courts and a last minute rescheduling • Poor communications between levels of Courts, Court staff and Judges; • Trial windows being overfilled.

37. Judicial Requirements for CMS • Information Availability and Management of Judicial Time • Availability of relevant information • Electronic Diary system • Management of Case to Trial • Automatic triggering of events or requirements for action • Judge works in tandem with the computer based management system

38. Advantages for the Judiciary • To obtain information regarding • the progress of a case to monitor compliance with orders; • the status for a particular matter for the purposes of planning; • preparation for a hearing; • trends in the progress of a case or to determine any management issues that need to be addressed; • information for Executive Judges

39. Advantages for the Judiciarycontd. • Access to rosters and management information for Heads of Bench • In Court allocation of hearing dates • Automation of repetitive tasks based on case tracking • Allocation or disqualification of a Judge from hearing • Management information for Executive Judges

40. Using the System • Document Management - in Court preparation of orders, bail papers etc • Rostering and Scheduling - better use of judicial resources and Court assets • Ease of Navigation - by mouse-click • On-line access to research materials • Case oriented focus

41. Conclusion Case management may enhance access to justice, it may improve confidence in the Court system. It may make the process of adjudication less threatening and less stressful. But as in all circumstances involving a solution for the human condition the purpose of our ultimate mission must not be overlooked – that justice must be accessible, it must be available and it must not discriminate, either in terms of disposition of a case or in terms of its availability to the citizenry.