Professor Tania Sourdin

Recent research on the nature, prevalence and severity of judicial stress in Australia has revealed a considerable burden of stress placed upon the judicial system. This article builds upon this research by exploring the demographic and workplace factors associated with elevated stress among Australian judicial officers. A survey of 152 judicial officers from 5 Australian courts found that judicial stress¿operationalised as non-specific psychological distress, depressive and anxious symptoms, burnout and secondary traumatic stress¿was predicted by satisfaction of the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness. The only demographic variable found to be reliably associated with judicial stress was jurisdiction: compared with judicial officers in the higher jurisdictions (i.e. judges), those in the summary jurisdictions (i.e. magistrates) reported significantly higher levels of stress and significantly lower levels of basic psychological needs satisfaction. Implications and areas for future research are discussed. Alcohol use and dependence was not associated with levels of stress or needs satisfaction.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, courts around the world have introduced a range of technologies to cope with social distancing requirements. Jury trials have been largely delayed, although some jurisdictions moved to remote jury approaches and video conferencing was used extensively for bail applications. While videoconferencing has been used to a more limited extent in the area of sentencing, many were appalled by the news that two people were sentenced to death via Zoom. This article uses actor-network theory (ANT) to explore the role of technology in reshaping the experience of those involved in the sentencing of Punithan Genasan in Singapore.

As with other jurisdictions, China has introduced a range of newer technologies into its justice sector to promote greater access to justice, improve judicial transparency and to promote just outcomes for disputing parties with legal issues. Chinese courts¿ practice of embracing technology is unique as an overarching approach has been adopted by the central government to build the ¿smart court¿ system across the entirety of its courts. Arguably, the smart court system, which relies on computer technologies that enable big data use, blockchain formation and advisory and determinative forms of artificial legal intelligence, has, to a certain degree, promoted easier access to justice, enabled faster dispute resolution, saved costs by moving judicial process online and ensured that judgments can be enforced. On the other hand, however, there are concerns relating to the use of some technologies that include the use of automated judgments, digital divide issues, judicial independence, as well as issues linked to privacy and data protection. This article concludes that some caution should be exercised in developing the ¿smart court¿ system, primarily in relation to the oversight and introduction of more disruptive technologies to ensure that cheap and quick dispute resolution can be achieved without detrimental impacts on justice.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (¿ADR¿) processes, particularly mediation, have been integrated into court and tribunal processes in various ways. Civil courts increasingly require parties to engage in pre-action dispute resolution protocols prior to the issue of proceedings. These initiatives take various forms, and have varying degrees of success. In 2018 the authors undertook an extensive evaluation of the impact of pre-action protocols in the South Australian Supreme and District Courts. This culminated in a report that has subsequently informed reform to the relevant pre-action processes in South Australia in 2020. This article develops a particular aspect of the inquiry: The impact that lawyers may have on the take-up and efficacy of mediation in a pre-action setting. It focusses on a less explored element of the pre-action ADR debate ¿ the possible reasons for reluctance around pre-action engagement within the legal profession. The article concludes that there are a number of influences ¿ systemic, preferential, and professional ¿ relating to the timing, content, and nature of such processes, which have a significant impact on achieving change in this area.

Background: COVID-19 has disrupted not only the health sector but also justice systems. Courts around the world have had to respond quickly to the challenges presented by the pandemic and the associated social distancing restrictions. This has created significant challenges for the justice system and such challenges are likely to be further compounded in the post-pandemic era as there is a ¿tsunami¿ of COVID-19-related disputes predicted. Methods: This study will examine how global court responses have transitioned from being primarily traditional, face-to-face proceedings to online court processes (as supported by internet technology). By adopting a comparative approach, we will analyse how some countries have adapted to this shift to online mode while also maintaining a focus on access to justice. Results: We argue that online modes of dispute resolution, often referred to as Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), can promote resolution while facilitating social distancing in this new COVID-era. The rapid shift from traditional court processes to an online mode has further assisted the public, lawyers and experts to access the justice system in some jurisdictions, even during the crisis. In light of the scale of recent changes, there have been concerns about the capacity of courts to adopt newer technologies as well as issues relating to the impact of a new online model of justice, particularly in terms of the barriers for more vulnerable members of society. Further, the use of disruptive technologies in some courts have posed questions around whether outcomes generated by these innovations reflect the meaning of ¿justice¿ in its traditional sense. Conclusions: This article argues that courts should embrace newer technologies that support court services while being mindful of possible tech-related issues that can impact on justice objectives. We argue that by placing further emphasis on alternative dispute resolution methods and ODR into the future, this might offset the likely tsunami of COVID-related litigation which would enable courts, hospitals, medical professionals and patients to settle disputes in a just, equitable and more efficient manner.

Effectively designed complaint handling systems play a key role in enabling vulnerable consumers to complain and obtain redress. This article examines current research into consumer vulnerability, highlighting its multidimensional and expansive nature. Contemporary understandings of consumer vulnerability recognize that the interaction between a wide range of market and consumer characteristics can combine to place any individual at risk of vulnerability. While this broad definition of consumer vulnerability reflects the complex reality of consumers¿ experiences, it poses a key challenge for designers of complaint handling systems: how can they identify and respond to an issue which can potentially affect everyone? Drawing on current research and practice in the United Kingdom and Australia, the article analyses the impact of consumer vulnerability on third party dispute resolution schemes and considers the role these complaint handling organizations can play in supporting their complainants. Third party complaint handling organizations, including a range of Alternative Dispute Resolution services such as ombudsman organizations, can play a key role in increasing access to justice for vulnerable consumer groups and provide specific assistance for individual complainants during the process. It is an opportune time to review whether the needs of consumers at risk of vulnerability are being met within complaint processes and the extent to which third party complaint handlers support those who are most vulnerable to seek redress. Empowering vulnerable consumers to complain presents specific challenges. The article discusses the application of a new model of consumer dispute system design to show how complaint handling organizations can meet the needs of the most vulnerable consumers throughout the process.