Implementation of Judiciary Information Systems Strategy Phase II



PURPOSE

This information paper outlines the funding proposal for the Judiciary Information Systems Strategy Phase II Computerisation Project.

INTRODUCTION

2.The Judiciary has made comparatively little use of information technology in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Family Court, all of which are accommodated in the Supreme Court building. This has inhibited its efficiency and productivity, and reduced its ability to deal with the increased volume and complexity of work.

PROPOSAL

3. The Judiciary Administrator (JA), with the support of the Director of Information Technology Services (DITS), proposes to implement Phase II of the Judiciary Information Systems Strategy (JISS).

JUSTIFICATION

4. JISS is a three-phased development programme to facilitate the Judiciary’s use of information technology to maximise management efficiency and enhance standards of service to the public. The original scope of Phase I to III is at Enclosure 1. Following the full implementation of Phase I in November 1995, which has greatly enhanced the operations of the District Court, the Small Claims Tribunal and the Probate Registry, we propose to implement Phase II with the following modifications to its original scope to meet operational needs -

  1. deferring automation of the Labour Tribunal to Phase III to allow time to finalise a review of its operations;
  2. extending electronic access to legal reference to all judicial personnel within the Judiciary;
  3. advancing Jury management to Phase II as the existing computer system is close to capacity; and
  4. including automation of operational and human resources management.

The key component systems for Phase II are summarised at Enclosure 2. We set out the major improvements in the following paragraphs.

5. Co-ordination and Monitoring. The smooth operation of the courts relies on an effective and efficient mechanism to monitor case progress and co-ordinate court support services. The existing manual system provides no overall monitoring and control. Currently, information circulation is slow, error-prone, and often untimely for good decision making. This has resulted in mis-communication, confusion, errors and even adjournments of hearings. Such incidents not only waste court time and cause inconvenience to the public and the legal profession, but also seriously damage the image of the Judiciary. In JISS Phase II we shall adopt an integrated approach to case management by maintaining in a central database both the case progress and information on the requirement of physical and human resources for each case i.e. courtroom, judge, jurors, and court support staff such as interpreters and bailiffs. This central database would then enable the Judiciary to monitor any changes in case status or resource availability in an integrated manner, and to immediately notify such changes to the appropriate parties so that they may take action to avoid wasting court time and resources.

6. Listing. The computer assisted listing system introduced at the District Court in JISS Phase I is a valuable tool in the tracking of court availability, the monitoring of case readiness, and compilation of the daily cause lists. It also provides useful management information to assist with operational planning for the courts. We shall introduce a similar computer assisted listing system to the High Court, and enhance the system to support cross checking with the lower court’s diaries during the scheduling of hearings. The system can detect any conflict or cross booking for the same case or same party and notify the listing officers to effect the necessary re-scheduling.

7. Document Submission. Presently, the Judiciary dedicates each counter at the Supreme Court Registry to the filing and processing of specific types of document or action. This has resulted in prolonged queuing times and inefficient use of manpower. We shall introduce electronic cause books and registers to be shared by all counters and install a multi-functional workstation at each counter to provide ‘one-stop shop service’ to court users. Customers need only to queue once to submit applications/documents for filing. We expect to reduce the queuing time from 30 minutes to 15 minutes during peak hours.

8. Public Enquiries. The Judiciary arranges information in the existing manual cause books and registers by case number sequence only. Searching through these cause books and registers is difficult and time consuming if the case number is not known. We shall provide workstations at both the Supreme Court Registry and the Family Court Registry to facilitate public search using new electronic cause books and registers. In addition to case number, customers can also use the party’s name, in either English or Chinese, in their search. We expect to reduce searching time markedly from the existing average of one hour to less than 5 minutes. We shall reduce the waiting time to obtain a sealed copy of a recent Decree Absolute or Decree Nisi from 30 minutes to 3 minutes as we shall be able to generate these documents automatically by the system.

9. Information Flow. We shall enhance all existing networks and integrate them into a Judiciary-wide network that connects all Judiciary premises to improve the information flow. Typical examples are -

  1. At present it might require up to one day for incoming documents at the registries to reach the judges’ clerks. The new system would make available to the judges’ clerks all essential document information immediately upon their entry at the registries. For any urgent document received at the registries, the system will immediately send a message to alert the judge’s clerk.
  2. Presently the Judiciary takes about 10 days to notify the Bailiff’s Office, Accounts Office and registries of the Courts’ orders on bankruptcy and company winding up cases. This lengthy process caused several incidents of errors in releasing money to the wrong parties and necessitated the taking of protracted procedures by the Official Receiver to recover the money. With computerisation, the Judiciary can make available orders on such matters immediately to all concerned parties.
  3. Under the new system, the Judiciary can link bail applications initiated as High Court Miscellaneous Proceeding cases to the original case records, making the results immediately available to all concerned parties. Similarly, the Judiciary can immediately pass appeal results to the original case record system maintained at the lower courts.
  4. Under the new system, the Judiciary will be able to notify the Correctional Services Department of body order requirements two to three days earlier to aid the transfer of prisoners to court.
  5. The system will automatically generate memoranda, notices and ex-parte application results and fax them to the Attorney General’s Chambers, the Legal Aid Department, and also to the solicitor firms wherever possible.

10. Human Resources Management. We need to create a personnel information database that contains basic personal particulars, skill and experience profiles, training records, leave records and posting history for all Judiciary staff. In addition to the automation of record management at the Personnel Registry, the system shall assist heads of grades in planning staff development, training and staff movements. The system will also automatically reflect approved leave applications in the respective officer’s electronic diary to eliminate the existing problem of inconsistencies found in the manual diaries. The system will also provide a more effective means of staff deployment. Examples are -

  1. Court Interpreters

    Whenever there are requests for special language/dialect skills, the system shall scan the skill profiles and diaries of the existing interpreters to identify suitable candidates for deployment before searching for freelance interpreters. As for the hire of freelance interpreters, the system automatically identifies a list of suitable candidates for selection by the Interpreter’s Office.

  2. Bailiffs

    The system shall sort the summonses/writs according to the ‘district’ and ‘hearing date’ sequence so that the same bailiff can undertake summonses/writs to be executed in the same geographical areas with the appropriate priority. This system shall also keep track of execution progress and assist bailiffs with the calculation of execution fees.

11. Jury. The Judiciary will enlarge the potential juror database to handle an increase in the number of potential jurors. The system shall also enable random selection of jurors based on their language proficiency.

12. Legal Reference. The Judiciary shall maintain an up-to-date electronic legal reference database to assist judges in research. The Judiciary will also be able to make judgments available to all judges and judicial officers within three days once they are handed down, instead of the existing lead time of up to seven or eight weeks for the lower courts. The Judiciary shall install workstations with powerful full text search capabilities at the Supreme Court Library to replace the existing practice of using index cards, which only supports the use of case number in the search. We shall acquire electronic publications of major legal reference material on CD Rom’s and make them available to all judges and judicial officers via the communications network.

BENEFITS

13. Overall, the proposal shall improve the operational efficiency of the Judiciary and its services to the public. A summary of the efficiency improvements that are able to be quantified at this stage is at Enclosure 3.

14. One of the objectives of JISS Phase II is to introduce an effective co-ordination and monitoring mechanism that ensures smooth court operations and avoids any unnecessary adjournment of hearings. The anticipated overall savings should be substantial considering the saving of court time and resources and the corresponding savings at the Attorney General’s Chambers, at the Legal Aid Department, at the law enforcement departments, as well as the public who serve as witnesses and jurors.

15. Realisable staff cost savings of $4,948,000 shall arise from the deletion of 17 departmental/clerical graded posts. Notional staff cost savings valued at $9,396,000 annually is the aggregate of task savings across 296 posts in the Judiciary. These notional savings are derived from the elimination of repeated transcription of case information, replacement of typing work by the automatic generation of documents, information retrieval improvements, better file tracking, and automatic generation of statistics.

16. The new system shall also achieve staff cost avoidance amounting to $9,154,000 per annum, which would otherwise be required for the -

  1. provision of bilingual support to the existing juror management system, cause books, registers and court documents, which are anticipated with the greater use of Chinese at the High Court;
  2. generation of additional management information to assist with the development of judicial changes and administration planning and control; and the
  3. proper keeping of the manual cause books, registers and file movement logs.

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

17. A cost-benefit analysis of JISS Phase II is at Enclosure 4. Taking the realisable and notional staff cost savings, together with staff cost avoidance, the break-even point for the investment shall occur in the fifth year after implementation.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

18. The total non-recurrent cost for implementing the JISS Phase II is estimated to be $74,168,000. The cost breakdowns are as follows -


1996-97
$’000

1997-98
$’000

1998-99
$’000

Total
$’000

Non-Recurrent expenditure for
which a commitment is sought





(a) Computer hardware and software

159

19,340

3,995

23,494

(b) Communication network


5,066

894

5,960

(c) Site preparation

245

2,002

3,003

5,250

(d) Implementation services

489

17,026

584

18,099

(e) Data conversion

40

1,571

1,162

2,773

(f) Training/Consumable/ Miscellaneous


535

339

874

(g) Contingency



5,645

5,645

Sub-total

933

45,540

15,622

62,095

Other non-recurrent costs





(h) Judiciary staff costs

1,088

4,153

332

5,573

(i) ITSD staff costs

1,202

4,143

1,155

6,500

Sub-total

2,290

8,296

1,487

12,073

Total

3,223

53,836

17,109

74,168

19. The recurrent expenditure and costs are estimated as follows -


1997-98
$’000

1998-99
$’000

1999-00 and
annually to
2001-02
$’000

2002-03 and
annually
thereafter
$’000

(a) Hardware and software
maintenance

16

1,655

1,948

3,046

(b) Network services

362

871

1,024

1,024

(c) System support services


1,347

1,555

1,555

(d) Consumable


297

297

297

Sub-total

378

4,170

4,824

5,922

(e) Staff costs





(i) Judiciary


2,105

2,437

2,437

(ii) ITSD


1,934

2,241

2,241

Sub-total


4,039

4,678

4,678

Total

378

8,209

9,502

10,600

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

20. The plan is to implement JISS Phase II by adopting a phased delivery approach of the major system functions in accordance with the following timetable -

Major system functions/activities

Scheduled
delivery date

(a) Jury management

July 1997

(b) Case management at


(i) Family Court

January 1998

(ii) High Court and Court of Appeal

March 1998

(c) Resources management


(i) Personnel Registry, Interpreters, Bailiff

January 1998

(ii) Completion of personnel data conversion

July 1998

(d) Legal reference


(i) Access by all judges and judicial officers

December 1997

(ii) Completion of data conversion

May 1998

(e) Office automation

December 1997

(f) Management information

July 1998

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

21. In 1991 the Judiciary commissioned a consultancy study to advise on areas where the application of information technology can bring about improvements in service and efficiency and to recommend a strategy for implementation. The study was completed in mid 1992. The consultants proposed the provision of information technology support to all the main operational functions of the Judiciary on a phased basis.

22. Funding for Phase I of the implementation plan for JISS was approved by Finance Committee on 10 June 1994. Implementation was successfully completed on schedule in November 1995. It has achieved its objectives in providing improved services to the public, increased the handling capacities, reduced court waiting times and improved operational efficiency at the District Court, Small Claims Tribunal and Probate Registry.

Judiciary Administrator’s Office
27 November 1996


Enclosure 1 - page 1 of 2

Original Scope of Judiciary Information Information Systems Strategy -- Objectives of Individual Phases


Phase I

Phase II

Phase III


To introduce computer support to areas :-

    which require immediate automation to cope with the rising workload, otherwise service to the public will deteriorate to an unacceptable level;

    in which computerisation will achieve the fastest improvement and obviate the need to inject more manpower;

    which would require minimum additional staffing resources for the implementation of the computerized system

To extend computer support which has been
introduced in Phase I to other levels of courts

To support electronic access to legal reference material by Judicial Officers

To complete coverage of computer support for all major areas of Judiciary operation
To integrate computer facilities within the Judiciary

To provide interconnection with systems in Government departments such as Legal Department, Legal Aid Department and
Inland Revenue Department

Judiciary Information Systems Strategy - Major Projects in Each Phase

Target Areas

Pre-Phase I and
Parallel to Phase I

Phase I

Phase II

Phase III

Judicial Officers

Court of Appeal and High Court

    Pilot scheme for electronic access to legal reference material

Judicial Officers

    Training on basic computer usage
    Setting up of Information Centre for on-going training and support

Court of Appeal, High Court,
District Court

    Electronic access to legal reference material

Other courts Electronic access to legal reference material

Courts

District Court and lower courts Court recording and transcription services

Court of Appeal and High Court Pilot schemes for use of imaging & video technology

District Court and Small Claims Tribunal

    Maintenance of
    court diary and scheduling of hearings
    Monitoring of court availability and utilization

Court of Appeal, High Court, Family Court & Labour Tribunal

    Maintenance of court diary and scheduling of hearings
    Monitoring of Court availability and utilization

Other courts

    Maintenance of court diary and scheduling of hearings
    Monitoring of Court availability and utilization

Registries

Magistracy - Case and Summons Management System Processing of summonses and charge cases

District Court, Small Claims Tribunal and Probate Registry

    Capturing and maintenance of essential case information, application and grant details
    Case tracking and case enquiry
    Generation of various court documents
    Checking of fresh applications against previous applications, grants, caveats, citations and actions

Court of Appeal, High Court, Family Court & Labour Tribunal

    Capturing and maintenance of essential case information
    Case tracking and case enquiry
    Generation of various court documents

Other courts Capturing and maintenance of essential case information Case tracking and case enquiry Generation of various court documents

Administration

Magistracy - Case and Summons Management System Generation of management information and other statistical reports

District Court, Small Claims Tribunal and Probate Registry

    Generation of management information, caseload report, court utilization report and other statistical reports

Court of Appeal, High Court, Family Court & Labour Tribunal

    Generation of management information, caseload report court utilization report and other statistical reports

Office automation

Other courts Generation of management information, caseload report court utilization report and other statistical reports

Jury management, resource management, library functions, interface with government departments


Enclosure 2

Summary of the key component systems of Judiciary Information Systems Strategy Phase II)

The major functions of the key component systems are -

  1. Case Management and Listing for High Court, Court of Appeal and Family Court
      capture and maintain the essential case information;
      provide computer assisted listing and integrated electronic diary for judges/judicial officers, courtrooms and court support services;
      monitor the availability and utilisation of judges/judicial officers, courtrooms, court support services;
      generate cause lists and court documents;
      provide case tracking, file tracking and document tracking;
      answer enquiries;
      provide management information and statistics.

  2. Jury Management
      maintain the potential jurors database;
      provide random selection of jurors;
      generate summonses and letters;
      monitor the jury service against case progress.

  3. Bailiff Service Management
      monitor service requests and execution results against case progress;
      assist task assignment and staff deployment.

  4. Interpreter Service Management
      monitor service requests and availability against case progress;
      assist task assignment and staff deployment.

  5. Personnel Management
      maintain staff particulars, skill/experience profiles, training records, leave records and posting history;
      provide leave management and integrate staff availability with electronic court diary.

  6. Electronic Legal Reference Database
      maintain a centralised electronic legal reference database which covers internal practice directions, guidelines, judgments and electronic publications of major legal reference materials on CD Rom’s;
      provide gateway to access external law databases.

  7. Office Automation
      provide standard Government OA facilities such as electronic mail, word processor, fax facility and scheduler;
      cover (i) all judges/judicial officers and their judicial clerks; (ii) officers at MPS 45 or above, and their secretaries/assistants; and also (iii) heads of functional units.


    Enclosure 3

    Expected Improvements In Service Brought About By The Judiciary Information Systems Strategy Phase II

    Improvement Area

    Existing Performance

    Improved Performance

    Supreme Court Registry
    Counter queuing time for document submission

    Cause book search time

    Party’s request to access court file

    30 minutes (at peak hour)

    1 hour

    25 visits per week cannot be entertained due to files cannot be located

    15 minutes (at peak hour)

    Within 5 minutes

    File location automatically tracked, save 25 re-visits per week

    Family Court Registry

    Waiting time for a search of the Decree Absolute Register

    Decree Absolute Register search time

    Obtain Decree Absolute sealed copy

    Obtain Decree Nisi sealed copy

    1 week

    1 hour

    30 minutes

    30 minutes

    No waiting time

    Within 5 minutes

    3 minutes

    3 minutes

    Judge’s Clerk

    Essential case information of in-coming documents

    Notification of urgent submissions

    1 day(until the paper documents reach the judge’s clerk)

    No

    immeidately available once data entered at the registry.

    Immediately notified.

    Bailiff and Other Registries

    Bankruptcy and company winding up information

    10 days

    immediately notified once hearing results entered to the system

    Correctional Services Department

    Body Order Information to reach CSD

    2-3 days

    immediately available to CSD’s office at Supreme Court Building

    Judges/Judicial Officers

    Circulation of judgments

    up to 7-8 weeks

    within 3 days


    Enclosure 4

    Cost Benefit Analysis of the proposed Judiciary Information Systems Strategy Plan (Phase II) (at 1996-97 prices)









    ($'000)




















    1996/97

    1997/98

    1998/99

    1999/2000

    2000/01

    2001/02

    2002/03

    2003/04













    Costs





















    Non-recurrent





















    - expenditure


    933

    45,540

    15,622


















    - staff costs


    2,290

    8,296

    1,487


















    Sub-total


    3,223

    53,836

    17,109


















    Recurrent





















    - expenditure

    -

    378

    4,170

    4,824

    4,824

    4,824

    5,922

    5,922













    - staff costs

    -

    -

    4,039

    4,678

    4,678

    4,678

    4,678

    4,678













    Sub-total


    -

    378

    8,209

    9,502

    9,502

    9,502

    10,600

    10,600













    Total Costs



    3,223

    54,214

    25,318

    9,502

    9,502

    9,502

    10,600

    10,600













    Benefits





















    Realizable saving in staff costs


    -

    -

    2,474

    4,948

    4,948

    4,948

    4,948

    4,948













    Notional benefits in staff savings


    -

    -

    7,047

    9,396

    9,396

    9,396

    9,396

    9,396













    Staff cost avoidance


    -

    -

    9,154

    9,154

    9,154

    9,154

    9,154

    9,154













    Total Benefits


    -

    -

    18,675

    23,498

    23,498

    23,498

    23,498

    23,498






    Net benefits


    (3,223)

    (54,214)

    (6,643)

    13,996

    13,996

    13,996

    12,898

    12,898











    Cumulative benefits

    (3,223)

    (57,437)

    (64,080)

    (50,084)

    (36,088)

    (22,092)

    (9,194)

    3,704


    Last Updated on {{PUBLISH AUTO[[DATE("d mmm, yyyy")]]}}