Presentational tools

It is now commonplace for a public inquiry to be “paperless” and to be attended by virtual reality models and other internet technology-driven presentational tools. There appears never to have been any critical cost-benefit analysis of such an approach and it may be helpful to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the extensive use of computers at the various stages in the life of a public inquiry.

Preparation

Once the documents have been gathered a public inquiry will need to analyse them and to use that analysis to prepare for its questioning of witnesses. This is dealt with extensively elsewhere and will not be repeated here save to note that it is plainly important to adopt technology at the preparation stage that does not require an expensive transition for use at a hearing.

Presentation of evidence

If the technology adopted for the preparation stage can be used or economically adapted for use at the hearing then the clear advantage of a paperless public inquiry is that those who are most concerned with the presentation of the evidence will be familiar with its electronic format. It may be somewhat quicker for the lawyers, witnesses and Panel members to move between documents in screen than on paper but the extent of the time advantage will obviously depend on how massive the documentation is.

However, there are significant cost implications. Firstly, the traditional model is for one software suite to be used for preparation that is designed to offer a powerful search engine and a second software application is used for the presentation which offers quick access. Thus two sets of licences need to be bought and the information must be migrated from one suite to the other prior to the hearings. That takes time and is expensive.

In any event, the provision of evidence on screen during the hearings requires a large number of staff. The usual process involves screens for lawyers, witnesses, the Panel members and the public. There is central control of what is presented on those screens and the controller will ensure that documents that are called for are shown and are highlighted or magnified as requested. It is generally thought desirable to have at least four staff to manage the system and ensure its smooth running. The hardware will need to be purchased or hired and will be expensive. Obviously it is impossible to generalise about the cost of IT at a public inquiry, but a paperless hearing is likely to cost millions of pounds more than a paper-based one.

There is another drawback of electronic presentation of documents. That is that lawyers and the Panel cannot usually mark documents that appear on their screens. That is a function both of the software used and of the fact that control of what is presented on screen is centralised. The consequence is that any notes in relation to a document will need to be made separately, perhaps on a free-standing computer loaded with the materials. That is unwieldy and compares unfavourably with lawyers and panel members each having a paper bundle which they can mark, highlight and flag as the hearings proceed.

Live transcription

It is clearly desirable to have the proceedings of a public inquiry recorded, transcribed and made available on the internet. It is now common for the transcription to be contemporaneous. That has the advantage that lawyers and Panel members can highlight or flag passages of evidence as they appear and to do so by reference to issues. The disadvantage is cost. It is more expensive to arrange contemporaneous transcription than to have transcripts and electronic versions of them available the next day. Further, such transcription is relatively inaccurate in its raw form and requires editing on a daily basis before it can be said to be reliable. The need for editing may counterbalance the advantage of being able to highlight and flag passages.

The public inquiry team will itself check the edited transcript for accuracy and to ensure that any inadvertent reference in the hearings to names that ought not to have been mentioned is removed.

Virtual reality

Where a public inquiry involves an investigation of an incident about which eye witnesses will be asked to give their recollections, it is likely to be necessary to show photographs and plans. If the public inquiry is paperless then those documents may be supplemented by a more a less sophisticated virtual reality suite. At its simplest the suite may provide a 360-degree view of a scene compiled from a series of photographs, which can be panned-through on screen. At its most complex it may involve moving images that can be manipulated by the witness.  

Naturally each virtual reality suite will need to be developed for the particular public inquiry but experience shows that it need not be expensive and that the facility tends to attract media interest and coverage. Even in the case of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry there appears to have been no criticism of the cost of the virtual reality, which suggests that there is general approval of the concept and of the cost of providing it.  The Robert Hamill Inquiry found that the television media was particularly enthusiastic about it as it gained prime news coverage.

Screen-shots

Where plans, photographs or virtual reality models are shown on screen at a public inquiry it is possible to make provision for “screen-shots”. That is a witness or other participant can be given a touch screen and can mark on the screen so as, for example, to show the position of a person. The result can be captured like a photograph for later consideration.

Submissions and compilation of the report

When lawyers are preparing their final submissions and the Panel is writing its report it will be desirable to be able to cut and paste from electronic documents. That desirability plainly provides a justification for having electronic versions of the documents but it also suggests that such documents should be capable of being flagged and highlighted during the course of the hearings.