For discussion
FCR(96-97)99

on 31 January 1997

ITEM FOR FINANCE COMMITTEE

CAPITAL WORKS RESERVE FUND
HEAD 710 - COMPUTERISATION
Judiciary
New Subhead "Provision of digital audio recording and transcription services in the Supreme Court"

Members are invited to approve the creation of a new Subhead "Provision of digital audio recording and transcription services in the Supreme Court" with a new non-recurrent commitment of $24,888,000 under Head 710 Computerisation.



PROBLEM

The court reporting service in the Supreme Court still relies heavily on the traditional methods of recording. Due to the shortage of court reporters, the existing court reporting service cannot fully cover all courts. In addition, the traditional methods cannot meet the needs arising from the use of Chinese in courts.

PROPOSAL

2. The Judiciary Administrator (JA), having successfully provided a bilingual court reporting coverage in the lower courts through the introduction of Digital Audio Recording and Transcription Services (DARTS), proposes to extend DARTS to the Supreme Court.

JUSTIFICATION

3. The shortage of court reporters has been a long-standing problem to the Judiciary. The available staff can adequately cover the proceedings in only 12 of the 38 courts in the Supreme Court. Following the success of a pilot scheme in eight of the District Courts, Members approved the provision of DARTS in the District Court, Magistracies and Tribunals on 26 May 1995, vide FCR(95-96)14. These lower courts did not have any court reporting services before the introduction of DARTS - Judicial Officers had to take notes of the proceedings themselves. The Judiciary has implemented DARTS in the District Court since March 1996 and the system has been running successfully. The Judiciary will complete implementation of DARTS in the Magistracies by early February 1997 and plans to implement DARTS in the Tribunals in March 1997. In addition, Members also noted, vide FCR(95-96)14, that the Judiciary would extend pilot tests of the DARTS to court proceedings in Chinese and 12 criminal courts in the High Court. The tests commenced in August 1995 and were successful.

4. The experience with DARTS convinces JA that this method of recording court proceedings and transcript production is the long term solution to the problem of the shortage of court reporters and should be implemented in all courts.

Benefits of DARTS

5. The advantages of DARTS over the traditional court reporting methods are as follows -

  1. Bilingual services: Currently, court reporters write or stenotype shorthand in the English language and transcribe their notes in English. They do not have the skills to write or stenotype shorthand in the Chinese language. The transcription of Chinese proceedings from the digitised audio recording system using conventional, Chinese input methods is thus the only viable option at this time. By enabling transcripts to be produced irrespective of the language used in court, audio recording is essential as both English and Chinese are the official languages of the courts.
  2. More comprehensive coverage of proceedings: The shortage of court reporters means that sometimes only parts of proceedings are reported. This is especially common with civil trials. DARTS record whole proceedings and permit the accurate transcription of these proceedings.
  3. Clarification during court proceedings: The playback features of the audio recording system make it possible for Judges and counsel to clarify statements made, questions asked and answers given during court proceedings. This can greatly facilitate quick resolution of disputes on evidence.
  4. Reducing the need for transcripts: With traditional court reporting methods, the same court reporter who covers the proceedings has to produce the transcripts soon after the hearings when the proceedings are still fresh in the court reporter’s mind. This sometimes leads to wastefulness as transcripts are produced but later not required (e.g. because there is no appeal). In addition, with DARTS, court reporters no longer need to produce transcripts to enable Judges to review the proceedings. Judges can spend their time listening to playback recordings of case hearings and only request transcripts where necessary.
  5. Efficient use of manpower: Previous methods of court reporting are labour-intensive and require the presence and dedicated service of court reporters and clerks during court proceedings. However, DARTS automate recordings and remotely control the monitoring of the recording process. Clerical staff can thus focus on their other duties. Moreover, the reliance on court reporters will diminish and we can reduce the establishment of the grade in line with its natural wastage and to a level commensurate with its new role of overseeing the performance of DARTS contractors.
  6. Improved transcript production: Court reporters can now transcribe only their own reporting of proceedings and need a certain amount of time to complete the transcription. With DARTS, we can sub-divide audio recordings per case among transcribers and merge the transcriptions upon completion. This means several transcribers can work on the same case at the same time and is particularly effective when it is necessary to produce transcripts very urgently.
  7. Quality of recording: DARTS use advanced recording technology that provides excellent multi-channel audio clarity.
  8. Quality of transcription: The use of computerised transcription equipment facilitates search and retrieval, and therefore also the production of accurate and efficient transcription. In addition, DARTS make it easier to assign transcription work to the audio typists who are native speakers of the language used in the trial.

Implementation Strategy

6. JA envisages the introduction of DARTS to all 38 courts in the Supreme Court in two stages. The first stage will involve replacing the leased equipment in the 12 pilot courts with new equipment and extending DARTS to another 12 courts. The second stage will see the extension of DARTS to all 38 courts. After the full implementation of DARTS in all courts, JA will need only a much reduced establishment of court reporters to perform supervisory and quality control work as well as to provide a core team to cater for contingencies.

7. For cost reasons, the Judiciary will purchase digital audio recording hardware and software rather than enter into leasing contracts. The difference between the purchase option and the leasing options is about $11 million in favour of purchasing over five years.

8. On the provision of recording and transcription services, as is the case for the lower courts, JA intends to call tenders from those companies in the market specialised in providing such services. The advantages of this arrangement are as follows -

  1. Quality of transcripts: The flexibility of the contracting out arrangement enables us to ensure the highest recording and transcription quality through the selection of contractors and inclusion of appropriate terms in the contracts.
  2. Keeping pace with technological change: Contracting out through competitive tender ensures that the Judiciary can, through close liaison with, and management of, the private contractors, gain exposure to the latest technology and enhance its expertise in, and ability to map out the long term development of, court reporting services.
  3. Obviating the problem of staff shortfall: Engaging private contractors can overcome the problems arising from the perennial shortfall in the Court Reporter Grade. This can also obviate the need for the Judiciary to recruit and provide basic transcription training to court reporters.

Cost Benefit Analysis

9. The Court Reporter Grade currently comprises eight Senior Court Reporter and 63 Court Reporter posts. The corresponding total full annual staff costs (including salaries and on-costs) are currently around $57.5 million. In addition to improving court reporting service, full implementation of DARTS will make it possible to reduce the Court Reporter Grade to 37 posts only by 30 June 1998. The deletion of 34 Court Reporter posts represents a saving of about $27 million per annum. JA will assess the need to retain the Senior Court Reporter posts upon the full implementation of DARTS.

10. Full implementation of DARTS will also result in savings in the form of cost avoidance. On the basis of the existing manning scale of Court Reporters to courts (which is 3:1), the Judiciary will require 114 qualified court reporters to render reporting services to all courts in the Supreme Court, leaving aside the problems associated with recruitment and language. Full establishment on that scale would entail a full annual staff costs of around $90.8 million per annum. Implementation of DARTS obviates the need to expand the grade and incur an additional staff costs of around $40.6 million per annum (i.e. the difference between $90.8 million and $50.2 million, the latter being the full annual staff costs of the existing 63 Court Reporter posts).

11. In addition, upon the full implementation of DARTS, the Judiciary can realise further savings of $1.01 million by closing down the Mechanical Sound Recording System (MSRS) which has been operational since 1989. As a result, ushers will no longer need to operate the MSRS and can focus on their other duties. JA estimates the notional savings of Ushers’ time thus saved to be around $1.02 million.

12. A cost-benefit analysis of the proposal is at the Enclosure. Taking into account both realisable and notional savings, JA estimates the break-even point for the investment in DARTS to be one year after the full implementation of DARTS.Encl.

Implementation Plan

13. JA plans to implement DARTS in accordance with the following timetable -


Major activities

Scheduled

delivery date

(a)

Calling for tender

February 1997

(b)

Installation of DARTS in 24 courts

July 1997

(c)

Installation of DARTS in the remaining 14 courts

April 1998

This timetable takes into account the probable pace of the physical installation work, the projected natural wastage of the Court Reporter Grade and the contract expiry dates of the court reporters engaged on agreement terms.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

14. The total non-recurrent cost for providing digital audio recording at the Supreme Court is estimated to be $26,583,000. The breakdown is as follows -

$`000

1997-98

1998-99

Total





Non-recurrent expenditure for which a new commitment is sought




(a) Hardware/software in courts

4,363

2,193

6,556

(b) Hardware/software in chambers

1,533

542

2,075

(c) Hardware/software in control room

9,126

1,869

10,995

(d) Site preparation works

3,000

0

3,000

(e) Contingency (10%)

1,802

460

2,262

Sub-total

19,824

5,064

24,888


1997-98
$`000
1998-99
Total



Other non-recurrent costs

(f) Information Technology Services Department (ITSD) staff costs

1,172

523

1,695

Total

20,996

5,587

26,583

15. As regards paragraph 14(a) above, the expenditure of $6,556,000 is for the acquisition of digital audio recording equipment for installation in the courtrooms.

16. As regards paragraph 14(b) above, the expenditure of $2,075,000 is for the acquisition of digital audio playback equipment for installation in the chambers of Judges and other judicial officers involved in the hearing of Supreme Court cases.

17. As regards paragraph 14(c) above, the expenditure of $10,995,000 is for the acquisition of digital audio recording and monitoring equipment in the centralised control room.

18. As regards paragraph 14(d) above, the expenditure of $3,000,000 is for trunking works, power connections and power supply upgrading to prepare the site.

19. As regards paragraph 14(e) above, the expenditure of $2,262,000 represents a 10% contingency in respect of the hardware and software and site preparation costs.

20. As regards paragraph 14(f) above, the expenditure of $1,695,000 represents the ITSD staff costs to be incurred in preparing the tender specifications, tender selection and technical support. This comprises three man-months of Senior Systems Manager (SSM) effort, six man-months of Systems Manager (SM) effort and six man-months of Analyst/Programmer I (API) effort in 1997-98. In 1998-99 the ITSD effort comprises one man-month of SSM, three man-months of SM and three man-months of API.

21. We estimate the recurrent expenditure and costs as follows -


1997-98 1998-99 $`000
1999-2000
and annually thereafter




(a) Transcription services

3,782

6,599

6,599

(b) Management fees

3,300

6,458

6,458

(c) Consumables

183

387

387

(d) Hardware/software maintenance

0

1,439

1,439

Sub-total

7,265

14,883

14,883

(e) ITSD staff costs

0

0

397

Total

7,265

14,883

15,280

22. As regards paragraph 21(a) above, the expenditure is to meet the transcription service charges of the private contractor.

23. As regards paragraph 21(b) above, the expenditure is for the provision of a quality management system to ensure that the work of the contract staff meets the standard required.

24. As regards paragraph 21(c) above, the expenditure is for the provision of consumables such as CD-ROM discs, audio tapes and paper.

25. As regards paragraph 21(d) above, the expenditure is to meet the maintenance service charges for the digital audio recording system and its software following the free warranty period.

26. As regards paragraph 21(e) above, the expenditure is for ongoing ITSD technical support to assist in the monitoring and development of the project. This comprises three man-months of SM effort and three man-months of API effort.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

27. The law requires the keeping of proper records of court proceedings. Such records are essential when there are appeals to the higher courts.

28. The Judiciary faces a protracted problem of the shortage of court reporters. This problem remains notwithstanding recruitment and training efforts and the introduction of computer aided transcription (CAT) and MSRS in 1982 and 1989 respectively. JA originally expected that CAT and MSRS would improve the efficiency of the court reporting service and enable a gradual expansion of the service from the Supreme Court to all court levels. However, this did not materialise. The effectiveness of CAT depends greatly on the shorthand speed and English proficiency of the reporters. As these two pre-requisites have been wanting consistently from the trainees, JA decided to suspend CAT training courses in April 1994. MSRS is an audio cassette recording system. Due to recording quality problems, MSRS cannot provide a reliable stand-alone court reporting service; it is useful only as a supplement to other methods. As a result, the Supreme Court still has to rely heavily on the service of court reporters. Therefore, before the introduction of DARTS, there was no court reporting service in the lower courts. At the hearing of the Public Accounts Committee on 21 November 1994, JA accepted the past failures and undertook to improve the court reporting service.

29. One of the Judiciary’s declared policy commitments to serve the community better is the provision of a fully bilingual court reporting system through the introduction of digital audio recording and transcription services in the courts.

Judiciary

January 1997


Enclosure to FCR(96-97)99

Costs and Benefits Analysis for DARTS - Supreme Court

$’000

1997-98

1998-99

1999-2000

2000-01

Costs





Non-recurrent costs





- non-recurrent expenditure

19,824

5,064

0

0

- ITSD staff costs

1,172

523

0

0

Sub-total

20,996

5,587

0

0






Recurrent costs





- recurrent expenditure

7,265

14,883

14,883

14,883

- ITSD staff costs

0

0

397

397

Sub-total

7,265

14,883

15,280

15,280






Total costs

28,261

20,470

15,280

15,280





Benefits

Realisable savings





- gradual deletion of 34 Court Reporter posts

13,134

24,677

27,065

27,065

- MSRS maintenance

0

728

728

728

- deletion of 1 Senior Radio Mechanic post

0

283

283

283

Sub-total

13,134

25,688

28,076

28,076






Notional savings





- saving of 3.6 ushers

382

892

1,020

1,020

Sub-total

382

892

1,020

1,020






Total benefits

13,516

26,580

29,096

29,096






Net benefits

(14,745)

6,110

13,816

13,816






Cumulative net benefits

(14,745)

(8,635)

5,181

18,997


Last Updated on 5 August 1999