Anne Wallace

Who is a Journalist?: Changing legal definitions in a de-territorialised media space

The emergence of blogging and citizen journalism has created challenges in defining the once-simple terms of “journalist” and “news media”. Internationally, courts, legislators and policy makers are developing new definitions that incorporate a broader understanding of journalism practice, as territories blur and shift across digital spaces. However, a lack of consensus has resulted in jurisdictional clashes, challenges to legislative amendments, appeals to higher courts, and confusion for regulators and practitioners alike. In Australia, recently legislated shield laws have resulted in different definitions across the country’s various jurisdictions. In the United States, court cases relating to defamation and shield laws have been successfully appealed based on differing definitions of the role of a journalist. In New Zealand, a High Court judgement overturned a lower court decision, to find that a blogger could be viewed as a journalist. At the same time, courts internationally are developing policies and guidelines relating to live text-based communication from courts, which also requires them to determine who is permitted to text, tweet or blog from within courtroom. This paper examines how these courts, legislators and policy makers are grappling with the challenges of redefining “journalist” and “news media” while ultimately focusing on the objective of ensuring a free and democratic flow of information.

Performing Expertise: The Design of Audiovisual Links and the Construction of the Remote Expert Witness in Court

This article reports on empirical research conducted into the use of audiovisual links (videolinks) to take expert testimony in jury trials. Studies reveal ambivalent attitudes to court use of videolink, with most previous research focussed on its use for vulnerable witnesses and defendants. Our study finds there are issues unique to expert witnesses appearing by videolink, such as compromised ability to gesture and interact with exhibits and demonstrative tools, and reductions in availability of feedback to gauge juror understanding. Overall, the use of videolinks adds an additional cognitive load to the task of giving expert evidence. While many of these issues might be addressed through environmental or technological improvements, we argue this research has broader ramifications for expert witnesses and the courts. The use of videolinks for taking expert evidence exposes the contingent nature of expertise and the cultural scaffolding inherent in its construction. In reflecting on the implications of these findings, and on the way that reliability, credibility and expertise are defined and established in court, we suggest a more critical engagement with the relationship between content and mode of delivery by stakeholders.

Judicial engagement and AV links: judicial perceptions from Australian courts

ABSTRACT Use of technology significantly impacts the nature of judicial work. While audio-visual (“AV”) links may generate some efficiencies, the increasing use of this technology conflicts with other important developments, notably procedural justice and therapeutic jurisprudence, which recognise and valorise the interactive nature of judicial work, especially sentencing in criminal cases. Analysing judicial perceptions of AV use in courts creates a clearer picture of its benefits and disadvantages, particularly in light of expectations of direct personal engagement.

Terrorist Trials: Forensic Science and the Trial Process

Forensic science plays an invaluable role in modern legal processes, and nowhere is this more likely to be true than in the modern-day terrorist trial. While the link between the accused and the crime is likely to the major point of contention and the one at which forensic science will be most likely to be engaged, forensic science will often have an important role to play in identifying the methods used to commit the acts in question. In terrorism-related offences, both roles are increasingly likely to be carried out in an internationalised, collaborative environment, where far greater attention will be focused on the quality of the forensic science and its application in the investigation stage, as well as in the courtroom.

Australia’s Lower-level Criminal Courts: Tackling 21st Century Problems in a 19th Century Paradigm?

Australia’s courts have been significantly impacted by change over the past 30 years. They have, to some extent, modernised their procedures and practices, but are caught very much in a period of transition: between approaches to dealing with criminal cases that would be familiar to 19th century lawyers, and are focused on efficiency and volume, to those that require greater engagement with the needs of court users. This is particularly the case in the high-volume magistrates’ courts that deal with most of the criminal caseload.