ISE07/19-20

• Hong Kong is globally renowned for its judicial independence, ranking the eighth around the world.^{1Legend symbol denoting World Economic Forum (2019).} However, its court system is still largely paper-based, with little deployment of the fast-developing information technology ("IT"), resulting in a lower global ranking in efficiency of the court system. In 2019, Hong Kong on average needed 385 days to resolve a commercial dispute in the District Court, taking the 32^nd position only.^{2Legend symbol denoting World Bank (2019).} Most recently after the outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19"), the Judiciary adjourned most court proceedings for three months till 3 May 2020, affecting 18% of the annual caseload.^{3Legend symbol denoting GovHK (2020b).} Not only did it precipitate public concerns over delayed justice, but it also rendered the litigation segment of the legal workforce idle upon a general halt in judicial activities.
• In May 2013, the Judiciary launched a six-year action plan under the Information Technology Strategy Plan ("ITSP") to enhance efficiency of case management and provide more electronic services ("e-services"), but its implementation is far behind schedule by up to 57 months.^{4Legend symbol denoting The Audit Commission ("Audit") found that there were slippages of 6-57 months in all four major items of the plan, leading to a delay of at least 33 months in completion. See Judiciary Administration (2013) and Audit Commission (2019).} In October 2019, the Audit Commission ("Audit") expressed its concerns over the delays and identified a host of implementation issues which will be discussed below.^{5Legend symbol denoting Audit Commission (2019).} Members have also raised concerns over ITSP on at least six occasions over the past five years.^{6Legend symbol denoting Members asked about the progress of the implementation of ITSP during the examination of the Estimates of Expenditure during 2017-2020 and at meetings of Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services in 2019 and 2020. See Legislative Council Secretariat (2019a).}
• By contrast, the Judiciary in Singapore is globally acclaimed as a pioneer in e-justice, having adopted the electronic filing system as early as 1997. The World Bank hailed its "court automation" as an example of best practices in the world.^{7Legend symbol denoting World Bank (2016 and 2019).} This issue of Essentials gives a concise account of the electronic measures taken in the courts of Singapore, after a quick review of respective policy developments in Hong Kong.

Social benefits of IT application in courts

• Courts around the world are moving from paper-based systems to greater use of IT to speed up court proceedings. On top of environmental benefits, electronic filing ("e-filing") and proceedings can (a) save time and efforts in submission, referencing, search and research of legal documents; (b) avoid errors and omissions commonly seen in paper-based systems; (c) expedite automation in subsequent procedures in courts (e.g. hearings and other proceedings through video-conferencing); (d) protect vulnerable witnesses and help litigants in remote areas through video-hearings; and (e) improve public access to justice, as court users other than judicial officers can now file documents and complete other judicial processes online around the clock.^{8Legend symbol denoting World Bank (2016).}
• As an illustration, courts in the United Kingdom ("UK") used 160 million sheets of paper (stacking up to 15 kilometres) every year before adoption of the e-filing system in 2015. Yet they managed to save more than 100 million sheets of paper during 2015-2019 with e-filing.^{9Legend symbol denoting GOV.UK (2013 and 2019).} In Australia, hearing time was reduced by 25% after improved accessibility of documents for a major case in 2009.^{10Legend symbol denoting Allsop (2019).} In Singapore and South Korea, e-filing enables lawyers and the general public to file legal documents any time, without restriction of office hours of the Judiciary. In short, court automation can expedite judicial process and hence enhance the quality of justice, given the legal maxim that "justice delayed is justice denied".

Recent development of IT application in courts in Hong Kong

• In spite of commencement of computerization in the 1990s, local court processes are still rather paper-based and manually operated. According to a study of the World Bank in 2019, Hong Kong scored a low grade of one on a 0-4 scale in "court automation", while Singapore and South Korea attained the top grade of four.^{11Legend symbol denoting The score is based on whether electronic means are used in (a) filing of initial complaints, (b) notifications to defendants, (c) payment of court fees, and (d) publication of judgements. See World Bank (2019).}
• In May 2013, the Judiciary launched ITSP with an approved budget of HK$682 million, aiming to develop an e-filing system (namely Integrated Case Management System ("iCMS")) for more efficient case management by the Judiciary and to support development of various e-services for court users.^{12Legend symbol denoting As at 30 June 2019, HK$362 million (53%) of the approved funding of HK$682.4 million had been spent. See Judiciary Administration (2013) and Audit Commission (2019).} This apart, ITSP was also aimed at upgrading IT infrastructure in courtrooms for using electronic documents and application of remote hearings. Under ITSP, a Six-year Action Plan was prepared for completion by December 2019.
• However, the progress of ITSP has been very slow, as iCMS and many e-services (e.g. online filing of case initiation documents and payment) have not yet been implemented after six years till now. According to Audit, only 87 or 0.2% of cases filed in High Court used electronic bundles in 2018 after introduction in 2011, while 47% of visual-audio systems in courtrooms were outdated and could not support notebook computers of lawyers in 2016.^{13Legend symbol denoting While the Judiciary Administration responded that it had been replacing the systems and acquired 20 sets of portable e-presentation systems for courtrooms since 2016, Audit noted that the progress of replacement was slow and utilization of new systems was not fully monitored. See Audit Commission (2019).} In June 2019, the Judiciary reported that it had to push back the target completion date of the entire Action Plan by 33 months to September 2022.
• By and large, implementation delays of ITSP could be attributable to the following major factors:
  
  

  (a)	Legislative framework not yet ready for e-filing: Although the Electronic Transactions Ordinance (Cap. 553) has already been enacted since 2000 to provide legal recognition for electronic records and signatures, it does not apply to court proceedings. Apparently, this legal gap has played a large part in slowing IT application in local courts. On 8 January 2020, the Court Proceedings (Electronic Technology) Bill was eventually submitted to the Legislative Council for the first reading, aiming to clear the legal hurdle against use of electronic documents in courts;14Legend symbol denoting Legislative Council Secretariat (2019b).
  (b)	Shortcomings in project governance of ITSP: According to the Audit report published in October 2019, the implementation delays were due to (i) manpower shortage and high turnover of contract staff; (ii) delays in hiring contractors; and (iii) long lead time in procurement of IT infrastructure. Moreover, Audit noted that there was a lack of clear demarcation of project management responsibilities between the Steering Committee ("SC") at the top and the working group set up under it.15Legend symbol denoting Audit Commission (2019). Audit recommended "a need to convene timely meetings" for SC; and
  (c)	Limited engagement of other court users: As court automation is bound to affect work practice of the entire legal profession (including 1 558 practising barristers and 10 344 practising solicitors at end-2019), it is of utmost importance to engage key stakeholders in the design of the new system and get them ready in its implementation. While Hong Kong Bar Association supported the Bill in consultation, it expressed concerns over the user-friendliness of the future system.16Legend symbol denoting Legislative Council Secretariat (2019b). Also, Audit noted that the Judiciary had briefed only two of some 40 prosecuting agencies on the design and use of the web portal by 2019, and it had not yet resolved some problems they raised three years ago.

• After the outbreak of COVID-19, there have been renewed concerns in the local community (especially the legal profession) over the slow progress of IT application in the Judiciary. The three-month general adjournment of court proceedings starting from 29 January 2020 affected nearly 18% of the annual caseload (or an estimate of some 90 000 court cases as an equivalent). In response, the Judiciary conducted its first video hearing in the High Court on 6 April 2020.^{17Legend symbol denoting The Judiciary issued on 2 April 2020 a Guidance Note for Remote Hearings for Civil Business in the High Court, with the first two cases using video-conferencing on 6 April and 7 April at the Court of Appeal and the Court of First Instance respectively. See GovHK (2020a).} Also, the Government announced a HK$40-million LawTech Fund on 8 April 2020, giving each small law firm up to HK$50,000 for procuring IT systems.^{18Legend symbol denoting Department of Justice (2020).} Yet both Members and legal professionals consider that these measures are far too modest to expedite local court automation.

Development towards court automation in Singapore

• Court procedures in Singapore used to be "slow and inefficient" before 1991, requiring five years to clear a large backlog of 2 000 cases pending for trial at the Supreme Court. While this problem had persisted for more than four decades, the Singaporean government decided to confront the court inefficiency problem in the 1990s, as it had become a hurdle to the country's development as a global business hub.^{19Legend symbol denoting In 1991, the Singaporean government produced The Strategic Economic Plan: Towards a Developed Nation. See Chan (2007) and World Bank (2007).}
• In September 1990, Yong Pung How (楊邦孝) was appointed as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and he proposed a series of reforms which contributed to a "change in the institutional culture" of the Judiciary, clearing the backlog through IT applications and court modernization.^{20Legend symbol denoting Reforms included increasing manpower, streamlining procedures and leveraging technology, as mapped out in annual work plans since 1992. See World Bank (2007).} His successors followed this reformist agenda, recently having rolled out a five-year IT plan in 2017 and set up a dedicated Office of Transformation and Innovation in 2018.
• The salient features of court automation in Singapore are briefly summarized below:
  
  

  (a)	Legislative framework for electronic files: Upon enactment of the Electronic Transaction Act 1998, it has allowed the Judiciary in Singapore to accept electronic documents since the late 1990s, at least 20 years ahead of Hong Kong. Moreover, the Evidence Act was amended in 1997 to allow "computer output" as admissible evidence;21Legend symbol denoting National Achieves of Singapore (2007) and PwC (2017).
  (b)	Intelligent and mandatory e-filing system: To begin with, Singapore introduced the e-filing system for civil litigation in 1997. After piloting for three years, e-filing became mandatory for a broad range of documents of civil litigation in 2000, with dedicated offices (i.e. LawNet Service Bureaux) set up to assist those law firms unequipped to do such e-filing.22Legend symbol denoting Supreme Court of Singapore (2000). Necessary training and incentives were also provided to the legal workforce to adapt to this change.23Legend symbol denoting Apart from training sessions on e-filing, Singapore offered a 15% discount on filing fees at the initial stage and more recently provided up to S$130,000 (HK$746,200) to each law firm for IT upgrades in 2019. See Supreme Court of Singapore (2002) and the Straits Times (2019). After an in-depth review, the e-filing system was redesigned in 2013 and extended to criminal cases in 2015. At present, Singaporean court users can save themselves the trouble of paper management, capturing the full benefits of electronic files. The enhanced e-filing system in Singapore is also more user-friendly than its older version. It is considered even better than the e-filing system in Germany, as it (i) allows users to enter key information only once to reduce retyping; (ii) automates more workflow (e.g. data verification and generation of documents such as draft orders), and (iii) allows users to log in using SingPass (i.e. a digital identity for all Singaporeans using e-government services), without the need for additional software or hardware;24Legend symbol denoting World Bank (2016), Supreme Court of Singapore (2018) and Zakaria (2017).
  (c)	Wide-ranging e-services in court processes: With the e-filing system as its backbone supporting the downstream web portals, all court users (including lawyers, litigants-in-person and law enforcement agencies) can complete a wide range of judicial processes online even after office hours. Starting with e-filing of case initiations in 1997, other e-services have been rolled out progressively, such as (i) pleading of traffic offences; (ii) delivery of documents to the adverse party; (iii) scheduling of hearings; (iv) payment of court fees and (v) acquisition of authenticated court orders;25Legend symbol denoting Chua (2017).
  (d)	Frequent application of remote-hearings: Starting with bankruptcy applications in Supreme Court in 2003, video-conferencing has been widely used for pre-trial proceedings and for trials involving vulnerable witnesses at various court levels. This is supported by sophisticated IT infrastructure, such as (i) six technology courts equipped with advanced equipment, first introduced in 1995, (ii) mobile info-communication systems for normal courtrooms, and (iii) an online platform launched in 2002 connecting law firms and government agencies to courts;26Legend symbol denoting Rajah (2012) and Chen et al. (2018). and
  (e)	Online dispute resolution: For small-claim civil disputes, a one-stop portal was set up in February 2018 to help parties-in-dispute assess grounds for litigation and conduct mediation through the online chatroom, before formally filing the claim. Such a built-in mechanism for mediation helps people resolve some disputes before resorting to litigation and thus reduces the caseload.

• After more than two decades of modernization, the Singaporean court system is widely acclaimed to be "world-class", having eliminated the backlog problem. Through intensive training provided to the legal profession to adapt to this change, about two-thirds of Singaporean law firms have subscribed to the e-filing system by 2018.^{27Legend symbol denoting Supreme Court of Singapore (2018).} Subscribed users have benefited from the round-the-clock access to the system, with 37% of documents filed after office hours as reported in 2015.^{28Legend symbol denoting Supreme Court of Singapore (2015).} For those non-subscribed law firms, they can still submit hard copies to the LawNet Service Bureaux for conversion into electronic files. In 2019, the World Bank ranked the courts in Singapore as the most efficient in the world, taking only 164 days on average to resolve a commercial dispute, 57% shorter than Hong Kong.^{29Legend symbol denoting World Bank (2019).}
• By and large, the success of the efficiency drive in Singaporean court system can be attributable to (a) IT and court modernization reforms driven by strong leadership; (b) an early legislative framework for e-filing; (c) training and incentives for the legal profession to get ready for e-justice; and (d) generally strong e-government infrastructure in Singapore, as the country is ranked the seventh in e-government by the United Nations in 2018.

Prepared by Germaine LAU
Research Office
Information Services Division
Legislative Council Secretariat
28 May 2020