SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Original URL: http://www.cnet.com/news/judge-recommends-online-court-without-lawyers/
[...] You're in a dispute over money. It's not a vast amount of money, but sometimes it's precisely these sorts of disputes that incite the highest emotions.
You feel cheated, robbed.
But then you have to hire a lawyer to defend you. Which is a cost and guarantees you nothing.
So Lord Justice Briggs, a senior British judge, has come up with a new solution: an online court for civil cases featuring claims of less than £25,000 (around $32,850).
This online court is part of his recommendations for reforming the British justice system. Yes, the one that Brits are always telling you is perfect.
The idea is that there would be user-friendly rules and that lawyers would be largely, or even entirely, superfluous.
There's another characteristic of an online court that moves the judge. He says it would be "less adversarial, more investigative."
Perhaps the lord justice has yet to acquaint himself with the interpersonal and expository skills of many who frequent Twitter and other internet forums.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 01 2016, @12:07PM
So, what is being proposed is a system where disputes are resolved more quickly and that does not require expensive lawyers to be involved. Sounds like a good solution to the problem to me.
As long as the process is open to scrutiny, fair to those involved, and the outcome is easily enforceable, then I cannot see much to argue against it.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Monday August 01 2016, @02:47PM
FTFA :
Perhaps, though, the online process would make participants feel it was more just
Only if they win.
So who make the decision? This idea is based on the false notion that if people are presented all the facts (on anything) clearly and transparently, they will alll agree and live happily ever after.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday August 01 2016, @05:19PM
Not to mention the opportunity for trolling the whole process for fun or profit.
Going into a court room, even a small claims court room, where there is a judge and a bailiff (with arrest powers) tends to keep thing civil.
On line, even over a Skype-like interface just doesn't have the same gravitas.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday August 01 2016, @06:51PM
The judge decides, as is normal in UK courts for civil cases. A jury is only required for more serious criminal cases. That is partly the reason that TFA states:
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday August 01 2016, @07:11PM
Well, that does make it a bit more reasonable. But it sounds open to gaming by the rich, the powerful, and companies. What's to keep the script from being prepped by a lawyer? What's to prevent a lawyer cuing his client via an ear-bud raido? (Parabolic speaker, etc.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday August 01 2016, @08:38PM
A lawyer has no part to play in the procedings.
As someone else has already mentioned. This is similar to the existing 'Small Claims Court', and the procedure is something like this....
I would expect that the 'internet' part is connected with the method of making the evidence submission - currently I think that the submissions must be made by mail - and also potentially for the hearing, assuming that both parties have at least audio feed with the court. This would save time on the part of the courts, and negate the need for the parties to travel to the court for the hearing, something that in total could take, say, half a day or more. The actual hearing is usually a relatively short affair, The judge will have seen the 'evidence' and , barring any additional questions, has merely to announce his decision.
The description above might not be complete and I might have over-simplified some of the stages but, essentially, it outlines how the Small Claims Court in the UK deals with claims up to £10,000. This proposal raises that limit to $25,000.