Transcript
Elish Angiolini:
The digital future challenges people of my generation. Computers came into my life in my basically early 30s, and before that I had no knowledge of working, and therefore I've had to acquire that. But I think for the current generation of lawyers who are coming through, they are much more comfortable with the reality of digital courts.
And this is happening already where you have evidence being transmitted using technology. We don't have huge piles of papers around in the courtroom any longer. Most of them have been scanned or automated, and information is transmitted. And witnesses can give evidence remotely from other parts of the world into the courtrooms. And we have virtual courtrooms where all of the participants may be in different parts of the country coming together in a conference scenario.
The use of digital information in future I think can only get greater. Already, most of our law books have become redundant because most of our books have been transcribed onto digital format. And indeed the case law is there too. So artificial intelligence I think is the next step. It's whether or not we lawyers will be made redundant, because there will be such sophisticated artificial intelligence that will be able to give remedies and solutions because of their enormous power to retrieve information.
I think that the idea that, however, you will have courts devoid of judges and lawyers is unlikely because of the human element of empathy and understanding of the emotional side of the law, which is not just about a problem, it's someone who usually is quite traumatised and upset with a problem, which means that despite the advance of artificial intelligence and the digital age, there might still be a role for human beings.
The rituals and the traditions which surround the operation of the law vary from one country to another. And in Scotland, like in England, in the higher courts, gowns and wigs may be worn and there may be processions. Much of that is just at a celebration of the beginning of the year. And they're pretty harmless, except if the impact of them is to alienate people and make people think that that's what it's like in the courtroom.
And in some courts we still wear wigs and gowns. And in many others, you'll find now that no uniform is worn at all. Indeed, if you go to our highest court in the country, the Supreme Court, the judges do not wear gowns. They wear suits. And it doesn't diminish the respect and solemnity of that court remotely.
I am not a fan of the uniform or of the wig. I think those were aspects of dress from many centuries ago and that they have less relevance. I have also been in courtrooms in America where there is no dress code such other than smart dress, and again the judges command precisely the same degree of respect as those of ours who are dressed up in red gowns or wigs and all of council dressed in black gowns and wigs.
Arguments are made that these traditions provide anonymity to the participants, but I'm not convinced about that argument. Most people recognise you with the wig on or off. And I think it can create something of a cultural barrier in a sense because people who come from other countries come into a courtroom, it's a very, very frightening experience. It can be really one which can be very disconcerting. And I think that anything that's a barrier to that, including court dress, is something which I think we have to consider and review as to just how relevant that is to 21st century justice.