Can Online Courts Promote Access to Justice? A Case Study of the Internet Courts in China

The right to access the courts is a basic human right in civilised societies, but the current legal system is unfriendly and often unaffordable for the victims of e-commerce disputes and copyright infringements seeking access to justice. Therefore, how to design a judicial system that is more accessible for the aforementioned victims has become a critical legal point of contention in the digital economy era. In particular, it is not easy to provide solid evidence of consumer disputes or copyright infringements on the Internet because the electronic evidence stored on the current centralised database has data security and trust problems. In response to this challenge, China established three Internet Courts in 2017 to move dispute resolution for e-commerce disputes and copyright infringements from the physical courts to the Internet. All the proceedings in these Internet Courts are conducted on the Internet, so the time and expenses of the litigants can be largely reduced. Most notably, these Internet Courts accept the use of blockchain as a method of securing evidence, to overcome the risks that evidence stored on the Internet can be hacked or falsified. The notion of an Internet Court, which substantially enhances popular access to justice, is a significant judicial innovation. It is of special significance for those lawsuits with small value claims and online evidence, and in which the parties are separated by long distances. However, these Internet Courts leave much to reflect on, including whether due process can be guaranteed, whether public trial can be fully implemented, and whether blockchain-based evidence is absolutely admissible. Even so, this article argues that true justice is not only to pursue absolute correctness of judgements, but that true justice should also strike a balance between the correctness and efficiency of trials. For this reason, Internet Courts may yet establish a new judicial paradigm to pursue a balance between correctness, time, and cost.     

Legitimacy and online proceedings: Procedural justice,access to justice,and the role of income

Courts have long struggled to bridge the access-to-justice gap associated with in-person hearings, which makes the recent adoption of online legal proceedings potentially beneficial. Online proceedings hold promise for better access: they occur remotely, can proceed asynchronously, and often rely solely on written communication. Yet these very qualities may also undermine some of the well-established elements of procedural-justice perceptions, a primary predictor of how people view the legal system's legitimacy. This paper examines the implications of shifting legal proceedings online for both procedural-justice and access-to-justice perceptions. It also investigates the relationship of both types of perceptions with system legitimacy, as well as the relative weight these predictors carry across litigant income levels. Drawing on online traffic court cases, we find that perceptions of procedural justice and access to justice are each separately associated with a litigant's appraisal of system legitimacy, but among lower-income parties, access to justice is a stronger predictor, while procedural justice dominates among higher-income parties. These findings highlight the need to incorporate access-to-justice perceptions into existing models of legal legitimacy.     

Protecting Ohio's Children: Ohio Juvenile Court Jurisdiction to Prevent Nonparty Interference in the Protection of the Best Interest of a Child

Ohio Rule of Juvenile Procedure 2(Y) allows juvenile courts to do what other courts cannot: designate additional parties to an action, allowing juvenile courts to better accomplish their statutory purpose of pursuing the best interests of children. However, sometimes this can lead to confusion about juvenile courts’ actions to protect children, especially when courts invoke Rule 2(Y) to stop interference with proceedings. This article will examine the historical foundations of Ohio's juvenile courts, the unique authority that they possess, and the conflicts that can arise due to interference with juvenile court proceedings. Ohio's juvenile courts have unique authority, and they can use that authority in a way that does not conflict with constitutional rights, while still working to protect the interests of children.     

Oversight of Administrative Rulemaking: Judicial Review

The role of the courts in the review of administrative rulemaking raises profound questions as to the legitimate interference of courts in the exercise of administrative activities, which are often carried out in the pursuance of a legislative mandate. In contrast to the review of administrative acts of individual application, the Union courts have shown a more hesitant approach in the review of administrative rulemaking activities. This contribution will discuss the review by the Union courts of administrative rulemaking for compliance with procedural as well as substantive standards and will explore whether a convincing rationale for their more deferential attitude to the review of administrative rules can be provided. The article will explore to what extent lessons can be learned from the jurisprudence of the federal courts in the USA, which have struggled, even after the adoption of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), with similar problems.     

裁判文书网上公开中的隐私问题研究

随着法院信息化建设的推进，裁判文书的公开方式呈现出从纸质到网络的发展趋势。加大了隐私扩散风险。针对法院是否应在网上公开裁判文书及公开的程度等问题，存在着三种观点：禁止说、区别说及同等说。为平衡公众知情权与个人隐私之间的冲突，对裁判文书中记载的敏感的个人信息或有损声誉的事实，需依据裁判文书公开的目的，决定是否将之公开在网上。同时，法院也应采取积极措施应对公众对隐私问题的关注，同等对待纸质公开和网上公开。     

Court evaluations of young children's testimony in child sexual abuse cases

Purpose

Prosecutors working with child sexual abuse (CSA) cases involving young children have raised concerns that reliability criteria from the Supreme Court of Sweden are holding children's testimony to impossible standards (e.g., expecting the child's testimony to be long, rich in detail and spontaneous). This study aimed to address these concerns by investigating how District Courts and Courts of Appeal employ said criteria in their testimonial assessments of young child complainants.

Methods

Court documents from District Courts (n = 100) and Courts of Appeal (n = 45) in CSA cases involving 100 children age 7 years and under were analysed with respect to the courts’ testimonial assessments.

Results

Testimonial assessments were more frequently referenced in acquitting verdicts and in cases with evidence of low corroborative value. Richness in detail was the most frequently used reliability criterion, followed by spontaneity. Most criteria were used in favour of the children's testimony. However, the length criterion was typically used against the reliability of the children's testimony.

Conclusions

Our findings confirm prosecutors’ concerns that criteria from the Supreme Court are frequently used in evaluations of young children's testimony. This is troublesome, as some criteria do not correspond to current research on young children's witness abilities. For example, compared to testimony given by older children or adults, testimony provided by a young child is typically not long or rich in detail. We encourage prosecutors to extend their own knowledge on young children's capability as witnesses and present this to the court.     

Exploring the Limits of the Judicialization of Urban Land Disputes in Vietnam

Economic and legal reforms have triggered waves of conflict over property rights and access to urban land in Vietnam. In this article I develop four epistemic case studies to explore the main precepts and practices that courts must negotiate to extend their authority over land disputes. Courts face a dilemma: Do they apply state laws that disregard community regulatory practices and risk losing social relevance, or apply community notions of situational justice that undermine rule formalism? I conclude that reforms designed to increase rule formalism in the courts may have the unintended consequence of reducing the capacity for judges to find lasting solutions to land disputes.     

Expert Evidence,Judicial Reasoning,and the Family Courts Information Pilot

The Family Courts Information Pilot took a modest step towards open justice in Children Act cases by publishing 161 judgments of the County Courts and Family Proceedings Courts. Combining socio‐legal and philosophical analysis on lines inspired by the work of Habermas, this article examines the epistemology of expert testimony implicit in the judgments. What emerges is a form of reasoning based on ‘inference to the best explanation’: judges seek to show that the best explanation for experts saying what they do is that they have good reasons for their opinions. While this approach is not blindly deferential, it has serious limitations in cases where the only experts are local authority social workers and the guardian, and an awareness of these limitations is one reason for the courts' willingness to allow other experts to be instructed. The article also criticizes the analysis of the courts’ use of experts by the recent Family Justice Review.     

‘Private jurisprudence’ and the right to be forgotten balancing test

Upon receipt of a right to be forgotten request, private actors like Google are responsible for implementing the balancing test between competing rights of privacy and data protection and free expression and access to information. This amounts to private jurisprudence that data subjects, lawyers, and interested parties could, theoretically, game to their advantage. This paper critiques this process and argues two separate, but related points. (1) Search engines have become the sole arbiter of the rights to privacy and data protection under Articles 7 and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, when safeguarding should be a responsibility of state authorities. (2) As private actors face litigation if their decision is not acceptable to the data subject, the right to access information and the public's right to know is compromised. Search engines exert considerable power over access to and Internet usage, yet nevertheless benefit from frameworks that permit a lack of adherence to similar human rights standards as public actors or agencies. As such, empowering search engines as decision-makers over conflicting fundamental rights is problematic. Rather than allow the content of the right to be forgotten to be fleshed out by private actors, the significant body of existing jurisprudence should form the basis for public guidelines on how to implement the right to be forgotten. An analysis of case law of national courts, the European Court of Human Rights and the CJEU reveals two related matters: it is possible to reverse engineer how search engines determine which requests will be actioned and those which will be denied. This paper argues a) collectively the body of jurisprudence is of sufficient standing to develop a public and transparent balancing test that is fair to all stakeholders and b) private actors should no longer be resolving the conflict between competing fundamental rights. The paper closes by positing a framework, loosely based on ICANN's Uniform Domain Resolution Procedure for resolving conflict between conflicting cyber property rights that provides transparency and accountability to the right to be forgotten and removes search engines as arbiters of the balancing test in select cases.     

A Gramscian Approach to Studying the Judicial Decision-Making Process

This paper applies a Gramscian analytical framework to scrutinise the judicial decision-making process. Based on two distinct research projects, the article explores how, on one hand judges in criminal courts can be identified as part of the bureaucratic machinery of the state, as ‘technicians of repression’; whereas, on the other hand, human rights judges can be distinguished as providing ‘moral and intellectual leadership’ in their production and reproduction of certain values. Some of the key questions this article seeks to answer are: What is the role of hegemony in the judicial decision-making process? To what extent are legal actors both ‘technicians of repression’ and ‘moral and intellectual leaders’? This paper uses examples from empirical research conducted at courts in Argentina and at the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights to identify and explore this dual role of judges as both repressive technicians and moral and intellectual leaders in neo-liberal capitalist societies.     

To recommend or not recommend: That is still the question

The boundaries around what parenting plan evaluators should and should not say in their reports to Courts has been debated in both mental health and legal circles for decades. The controversy about whether parenting plan evaluators should make specific recommendations to Courts regarding access plans and decision-making rights revolves around varied views of the limits of mental health professionals' knowledge about such matters, whether they are socio-moral or psychological in nature, and the benefits to children and society of facilitating case-resolution. In the conversation presented below a seasoned family law attorney and a psychologist who is a frequent critic of the practice of making specific recommendations debate this area of controversy.     

Judicial protection of fundamental rights in the transition from the world of atoms to the word of bits: The case of freedom of speech

This article underlines the role of Courts in protecting fundamental rights in the atomic and the digital dimension. The main aim of this work is to show how the coming of the Internet has affected the exercise and the judicial protection of freedom of expression in a comparative perspective. In order to answer this research question, this study will focus on the role of Courts as ‘playmakers’ in interpreting and solving issues deriving from interconnected legal regimes affecting the protection of fundamental rights and, especially, free speech. More specifically, the comparative focus will be on the decisions of the European Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Right and the US Supreme Court.     

法院变更起诉罪名之研究

目前国外对法院变更指控罪名问题研究已较成熟,英美法国家以法院不能变更指控罪名为原则,以变更指控罪名为例外.而大陆法系国家的法律规定,法院依职权审判,在事实审判上需要受制于起诉指控的范围,而在法律适用和罪名确定上法院可以自主行动.我国在该问题上虽已有法律规定,但太笼统,简单,面对一些实际问题该法律规定似嫌无能为力.法院应该享有变更指控罪名权,只是要在法院行使该权力时给予必要的规范.法院对指控事实的认定和检察院并无二致,只是在罪名认定上有分歧时可以直接在判决书中将指控罪名加以变更,该变更必须未对被告人辩护权造成实质影响且对其有利;如果指控罪名不当,法院如欲变更会恶化被告人的处境,不宜直接变更,须与检察机关协商后按照一定的程序加以变更.     

Picking up the Pieces: Cases Presented to the London Sheriffs' Courts between Michaelmas 1461 and Michaelmas 1462

Almost no records of proceedings in the medieval London sheriffs' courts are extant. I will demonstrate in this feasibility study of one shrieval year to what extent the reconstruction of the lost archives of the London sheriffs is possible and what can be learned from a systematic collection of all available evidence. By going beyond the Chancery corpus cum causa files our knowledge of cases heard in the sheriffs' courts is not only nearly doubled. We also get a more representative picture of proceedings. In addition, we are provided with detailed information about the sheriffs' courts and their personnel. Moreover, by following our litigants into other courts, we learn about their litigation tactics.     

我国人民法院应当设立劳动法庭

劳动争议案件具有不同于民商事案件的特点,无论从审判理念、审判模式、法律适用、审理效果等方面分析,由民事法庭审理劳动案件具有多方面不妥.我国劳动争议数量巨大,司法审判任务重.可以参照德国、以色列等国劳动法院的经验,在中国的人民法院设立专门的劳动法庭,待条件成熟后设立作为特别法院的劳动法院,专司劳动案件审判.劳动法庭宜聘请雇主、工会相关人士与法官共同组成合议庭,更专业地审理劳动案件.     

ENGLISH COURTS' TREATMENT OF THE CHILDREN OF SAME‐SEX COUPLES

This article reviews the historical approach of the English Courts to the children who are raised in same‐sex households; it discusses the very recent reformation of attitude of the courts, and of the legislators, to such family arrangements, and it examines the current attitude of the English Courts. The article considers how the courts have struggled historically to apply ordinary welfare principles in the different context of homosexual parenting, and discusses the complex inter‐play of family relationships when children are born into same‐sex families through donor insemination. The article discusses the ongoing challenges for the courts in dealing with cases of this kind.     

An Update on the New Federal Expert Discovery Rule: The Expert's Perspective

In December 2010, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (FRCP 26) was amended to protect certain communications between a litigating counsel and its experts from discovery. The rule protects communications and draft expert reports and lays out new disclosure requirements for the so-called “treating physician” expert. Attorneys and experts who first read the rule commonly agreed that the rule would make expert discovery more streamlined and cost-effective while preserving an opposing party's right to obtain facts and data that were considered by the expert in formulating its opinion. However, many commentators on the amended FRCP 26 warned practitioners not to fully embrace the literal meaning of the rule until it was field tested by litigating attorneys and the courts had the opportunity to interpret a number of loosely defined terms during the course of resolving federal discovery disputes. Now, almost a year after the rule's first official publication, several courts have interpreted the key terms that appear in the rule and have expressed their interpretations in written opinions. The judicial holdings of these cases cover different aspects of the rule, and it is still too early to determine how the majority of federal courts will ultimately interpret it. However, a review of current case law indicates that the courts have, thus far, taken a practical and literal view of the amended rule and have not expanded or limited its scope beyond what was generally believed to be the intent of the rule. As a result, practitioners are still hopeful that the rule will make working with an expert more efficient and less cumbersome, to the benefit of experts, attorneys, and ultimately their clients.     

论已确认事实的预决力

已确认事实的预决力既不同于裁判的既判力,也有别于"争点效"和"争点排除规则",其是我国民事诉讼法确立的一项具有独特内涵的制度。然而,由于我国民事诉讼法未明确预决力的条件和范围,从而致使司法实践中法院的做法各不相同,这种状况一方面有损法院判决的一致性、权威性,也与确立预决力制度的初衷相违背,因此,民事诉讼法的修改应明确预决力的条件和范围。实践中,法院应根据已确认事实的不同具体认定其不同的预决力。     

An illuminating case on the law of registered designs

This case involving registered design rights has clarified theapproach that courts will take in determining, inter alia, thevalidity of a registered design right when the purported proprietoris not entitled to that right and the characteristics of the‘informed user’ when determining infringement.     

Trans-Regional Courts in China: A Study of Establishment Models and Jurisdictional Rules

The trans-administrative regional (trans-regional) court was created as part of China’s judicial reforms in 2014. Thus far, only two trans-regional courts have been established, namely the Shanghai No. 3 and Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People’s Courts. An important reason for this slow pace is that the trans-regional court has transcended the current structural framework under the Organic Law of the People’s Courts in that (1) it is neither a specialized court that hears certain types of cases, (2) nor a local court established completely in keeping with administrative divisions. Therefore, the legal nature and status can only be clarified and justified when there is a clear definition of this new court system in the Organic Law of the People’s Courts. Several models, namely the independent set-up model, full reshuffling model and limited transformation model, have been proposed for the establishment of trans-regional courts. The most practical and efficient among these models is the limited transformation model, aiming to reconstruct the existing railway transportation courts. The trans-regional courts may have exclusive, alienage, or supplemental jurisdiction. Each form addresses particular types of special and major trans-regional cases, and other cases based on the theory of consolidation.