new zealand department for courts case management system

New Zealand Department for Courts

Case Management System

Modernisation Project

New Processes

New Staff Roles

Technology

Within Constraints

Process and Role Design Aims

• Staff – Proactive rather than Reactive

• Aim to achieve Meaningful Events– Registry role– Individual staff responsibility

Practice Notes & Standards

• Practice Notes in place in most jurisdictions and for most case types

• Key Performance Indicators (Standards) have been developed for matters not covered by Practice Notes

The Operational Model Supported by Technology Enables Caseflow Management

Judicial

Technology Core CMS Scheduling &Rostering

Update Case In Court

Tasks and To Dos

Document Management

Registry

• Record entered or updated at counter•Thorough, expert checking

• Improved information

• Access to schedule whenever required

• Update of record in court

•Single point of contact•Reduced hand-overs• Active liaison with parties

• Monitoring case to check progress•Early notification of issues to Judge

•

Receiving & Processing

RolesTaking Court

Scheduling & Rostering

Case Progression

Create Case / Parties

Assign Case to Staff

Charges / Applications

Orders / Sentences

Remands / Warrants

Register Appeals

Judicial Rosters

Court Rosters

Schedule Hearings by Courtroom

Register Documents

Create Expected Documents

Service of Documents

Document Location

Outgoing Documents

One screen “window” into core CMS functionality for speed of data entry

System and / or manually generated Tasks to prompt (by exception) registry staff to take action or monitor for compliance

CASE INITIATED

EVENT SCHEDULED

ISSUES ESCALATED

RECORD UPDATED

COMPLIANCE MANAGED

RECORD UPDATED

Process

ROSTERCOURTROOM/

CHAMBERS EVENT

DIRECTIONS/ ORDERS

MADE

CASE DETERMINED

Process

IT System

• Support for new operational processes

• Support for Caseflow Management

IT System Expectations

• Expectation that data will be entered at the point at which it occurs

• Aim is to have judges and staff confident that they can rely on the accuracy of the system and that it is up to date

Case Management System

In this presentation illustrate:– Recording of Directions– Creation of Expected Documents

resulting from those Directions– System monitoring for receipt of

Expected Documents– System prompts when Expected

Documents overdue

CMS Case Summary Screen shows current court and jurisdiction

Case Summary Screen also shows:•Type of Case

•Current Case Track•Staff member responsible for case

Judicial Directions are Recorded

Drop Down List of DirectionsBased on Case Type

Drop Down List of all Scheduled Events – Select Relevant Date

Populates Direction Date; Effective From date; Judicial Officer

Save Records each Direction

Add new Directions – Add button clears previous Direction and Prepopulates

Event, Dates and Judicial Officer fields. User populates other fields.

To schedule Next Event

User selects event type, required date, Judicial Officer,

sets preferred status and selects to View Schedules

Courtroom Schedule finds suitable hearing activity and highlights in yellow

Event is dragged from clipboard to relevant activity – then save

System populates Event Detail and Event is Saved

User may manually complete this screen or can ask the

system to find suitable dates - not before the entered date

System returns up to three options. Selecting Next will populate the Event Detail

screen.

The latest Direction is displayed on the Case

Summary

New Directions can be added by selecting the New Direction Button

All Directions on the Case can be viewed by selecting the Direction List button

Users can view each Direction by selecting the Details button

Users can navigate (from any screen) to the Document Register using the

Level 2 Menu

CMS registers the required documents as “Expected”

with their due date

Tool tips are used (throughout CMS) to

display text where there is insufficient field space

CMS creates tasks to advise staff when expected documents are not filed by their due date or an earlier

prompt date

Users can navigate (from any screen) to the Case

Task List using the Level 2 Menu

The tasks associated with the Expected Documents appear in the Case Task list if the documents are not registered by

the due date or the prompt dateThey will also display in

the Task Owner’s personal Task List

Various views of the Case Task List can be displayed using filters

The Status of Tasks may be updated by the system or by the

user

Tasks can be added by the user

Task details can be viewed

The Task Owner can record notes for each task

The Expected Document entry can be used to register the document

when it is filed. The relevant document is selected

and the Next button opens the Register Document Window.

Select Filer from Drop Down ListIndicate where document is held on physical file

Link document to Case Entities, as

required and Save

Registration of the document clears it from the Expected view in the

Document RegisterRegistration of the document

updates the related Task to Complete

The task for the Expected Document no longer appears as an open Task.

The Document Register displays all documents registered (or expected)

for a case. In this case all documents associated with the three

applications are displayed.

A Judge or Staff Member can use the filter to identify the documents associated with any of the applications in the case. This is used if only one of the applications is

to be heard at the next event.

Computerised Case Management

The Judicial Perspective

Outline

• Judicial Concerns for Automated Systems

• Benefits for the Judiciary from Case Management System

• Utilisation of CMS by the Judiciary

• Conclusion

Judicial Concerns• Confidence in the ease of transfer

from one jurisdiction to another

• Standardised work systems between jurisdictions - a common judicial interface

• Standard case management principles applicable across all jurisdictions

• An integrated diary system

Problems that CMS Could Resolve

• High staff turnover leading to the use of inexperienced staff;

• Missing or chaotic files;• Court orders or judgments which took too long to be

drawn and were often drawn incorrectly;• Lack of proper administrative support for the

Judiciary;• Lack of Judicial continuity in case management;• Delays in listing due to insufficient Judges requiring

cancellation of Courts and a last minute rescheduling• Poor communications between levels of Courts, Court

staff and Judges;• Trial windows being overfilled.

Judicial Requirements for CMS

• Information Availability and Management of Judicial Time– Availability of relevant information– Electronic Diary system

• Management of Case to Trial– Automatic triggering of events or

requirements for action– Judge works in tandem with the computer

based management system

Advantages for the Judiciary• To obtain information regarding

– the progress of a case to monitor compliance with orders;

– the status for a particular matter for the purposes of planning;

– preparation for a hearing;

– trends in the progress of a case or to determine any management issues that need to be addressed;

• information for Executive Judges

• Access to rosters and management information for Heads of Bench

• In Court allocation of hearing dates

• Automation of repetitive tasks based on case tracking

• Allocation or disqualification of a Judge from hearing

• Management information for Executive Judges

Advantages for the Judiciarycontd.

Using the System• Document Management - in Court preparation

of orders, bail papers etc

• Rostering and Scheduling - better use of judicial resources and Court assets

• Ease of Navigation - by mouse-click

• On-line access to research materials

• Case oriented focus

Conclusion Case management may enhance access to

justice, it may improve confidence in the Court system. It may make the process of adjudication less threatening and less stressful. But as in all circumstances involving a solution for the human condition the purpose of our ultimate mission must not be overlooked – that justice must be accessible, it must be available and it must not discriminate, either in terms of disposition of a case or in terms of its availability to the citizenry.