Law and Technology
-
This explainer outlines how advancing digital technologies—such as metadata retention, telecommunications surveillance, social media, and cyber tools—create new pressures on privacy, fairness, and accountability in the justice system. It highlights concerns that “each click, each message, each search on Google all provide information about you,” and shows how increased data access, rapid online influence, and unlawful metadata use challenge core rule‑of‑law principles while requiring transparent, proportionate legal safeguards.
-
This explainer outlines how technology is reshaping key justice processes, highlighting contemporary challenges across translation accuracy, virtual bail courts, electronic monitoring, digital victim‑notification systems, and automated risk assessment. It shows how technological tools can improve consistency, efficiency and access, while also creating risks for fairness, equality and privacy—echoing concerns such as translators being unable to provide accurate evidence (“large aspects missing”) and electronic monitoring eroding the presumption of innocence.
-
This explainer introduces metadata, how it is created, and how law enforcement uses it under the TIA Act. It explains the 2015 mandatory data‑retention regime, widespread agency access, and tensions between investigative powers, privacy, and proportionality. It also examines impacts on journalists and civil liberties, noting concerns that metadata can reveal extensive personal information and may chill confidential sources.
-
This resource is an abridged opening statement from Malcolm Stewart to the parliamentary inquiry into the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. It outlines rule‑of‑law concerns arising from Australia’s TIA Act, focusing on warrant processes, oversight gaps and declining public confidence. It highlights issues such as extremely low refusal rates and the ability for agencies to access communications without individuals ever knowing, raising questions about arbitrary discretion, judicial scrutiny and the need for more rigorous safeguards.
LSA Conference 2026: Technology and the Law
Justine Hanks
Education Manager - Rule of Law Education Centre
Additional Notes
Breaking News!
Overseas court transcription service provider VIQ Solutions placed into administration - articles:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-29/family-court-transcripts-viq-solutions/105904558
Principles of Justice and technology – Scenario
Dean is before the District Court accused of a serious sexual assault, where his matter is being heard before a jury. His alleged victim, Vanessa, has opted to give evidence at the trial and requires a translator as English is her second language. A translator is supplied by the court. Vanessa has been giving evidence now for almost 3 hours.
Just before lunch, one of the lawyers for the prosecution, who has the same cultural background as Vanessa, indicates that the translator is not accurately translating Vanessa’s evidence, with large aspects missing. The translator, who is has only been working in the courts for a short period of time, indicates to the court that they are not comfortable saying what was done to her and that they are finding the details traumatic. The trial is paused while a new translator is sourced.
Questions:
What are the challenges to fairness and access for Vanessa and Dean being caused by the original translator?
Can you think of a technological tool could be used to overcome this issue?
What are the risks associated with use of this technology and how might its use impact on fairness, equality and access?
How could law makers and the courts ensure support the achievement of the following rule of law principles by using this technology?
Presumption of innocence
Fair and prompt trials
The law is applied equally and fairly
The law is known and accessible
Principles of Justice Example: Centralised Bail Courts NSW
https://localcourt.nsw.gov.au/documents/factsheets/Bail_Division_Information_guide.pdf
Bail reforms were called for after deaths of victims of DV – Molly Ticehurst’s death in April 2024 sparked change specifically for Magistrates only to make bail decisions rather than registrars (common on weekends in regional areas) and for greater monitoring of DV offenders
Parliament passed a legislative amendment to enact this. Estimated cost of the change was $34m over 4 years to implement and required 6 new Magistrates
Regional weekend bail matters were centralised 23 November 2024
7 July 2025 - Bail Division was established
7 virtual courts divided up by region, Magistrates sitting at Downing Centre. Open to the public via AVL link on Webex - interested parties can request a link by emailing baildivisionregistry@justice.nsw.gov.au
Will hear first appearance bail applications from those who are police bail refused, have had arrest warrants executed or detention applications
Each Magistrate will be appointed for a 6-month minimum to the Bail Division and will remain on the one list for the duration to become familiar with local areas. All have served in regional and remote courts and are crime specialists.
Eventually all bail matters are to be heard virtually with all participants appearing via AVL, including defendants, police prosecutors, family/ support persons, legal representatives
Aims/ advantages:
Create consistency - fairness, equality, uphold community standards
Free up courtrooms for other matters, expediting resolutions - access to justice, resource efficiency, individual rights
Reduced workload pressure on Magistrates and other staff - resource efficiency
Support specialisation in bail matters - equality, fairness
Bail matters are dealt with faster for accused persons and victims, enabling faster access to justice
Possible disadvantages:
Access for support persons/ interested parties - assumes a certain level of technical access/ ability. Vast equality issues with tech access across the community – regional v metro, affordability of equipment and data technical proficiency, age etc
Online - reduces human element for parties
Screen based interactions alters the nature of communication may impacts on outcomes. Could be particularly difficult for neurodivergent accused persons
Emailing for a link could reduce transparency in proceedings - how public is it? (see FAQ’s)
Cut off time - must be arrested and processed before 12pm to be heard that day, otherwise carried over - infringes on rights
Changing the Law Sample Activity
Existing Law:
Go to the NSW Legislation webpage for the Road Rules 2014 (NSW) and find Road Rule 300-1.
https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/sl-2014-0758
What is the current legal requirement set out here?
Proposed Change:
What is a bill and what role does it play in law reform? Where can they originate from?
Go to the NSW Parliament Website:
https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bills/Pages/bill-details.aspx?pk=18607
Read the Second Reading Speech for each house (the Second one for the LA has the detail needed)
Outline 3 arguments for and 3 arguments against the proposed amendment. Ensure you provide enough information to know the reasoning behind each argument
What do you see as the main issue with this proposed change to the existing law? Why may it be a problem?
What could change to make it more realistic/ enforceable/ accessible/ useful?
Use the Effective Laws Checklist to determine whether this proposed law can be categorised as and effective law
Characteristics of Effective Laws Factsheet and Worksheet:
https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/explainer-informed-factsheet-characteristics-of-effective-laws#resource
Criminal Justice System Example: Electronic monitoring
Annual cost of one ankle monitor per year is approximately $50,000 - no private providers now
BOCSAR data shows that between Jan and Sept 2025 of the 30,327 bail decisions made where bail was granted, 28 resulted in electronic monitoring as a condition (15,444 were bail refused and 79,695 had bail dispensed with)
BOCSAR - 2023 study found that DVEM participants were 9.6% less likely to commit a new offence of any type, 32.9% less likely to commit a new domestic violence offence, 19.4% less likely to breach their ADVO and 11.4% less likely to return to custody https://bocsar.nsw.gov.au/research-evaluations/2023/cjb255-summary-dvem.html
DV victims who are at high risk of stalking can also opt to be EM’d in NSW. Victim conditions are:
have a history of being stalked away from the home
agree to ensure the device is fully charged prior to leaving home and is always with them when away from home, and understand the limits of the technology
not already have a monitoring device or duress alarm from another program
EM can be unilateral (ankle device only) or bi-lateral if participant opts (GPS on phone and ankle device)
When govt announced changes to EM of high risk DV offenders in 2023, there were around 60 devices available in the state in total so required significant investment to implement program
Advantages
More cost effective than remand (@$105,000p.a pp) and incarceration (@$180,000p.a per prisoner)
Can be used pre and post-trial (sentencing, parole)
Increased compliance with court orders and ADVO’s, reduced reoffending rates
Enhances opportunities for rehabilitation post release through contact with family and incentive to comply with conditions
Disadvantages
Privacy issues - particularly accused persons - erodes presumption of innocence
Need constant surveillance for effectiveness, but this is not the case in NSW
Questionable whether long term change is created
From overseas studies, benefits of EM varied across offence types, age of offenders and social factors of offenders
Some offenders find it more stressful/ onerous than incarceration as they are not able to participate fully in family life or because they perceive that it is more invasive on privacy
Can be removed, impacting effectiveness of the program
Criminal Justice System: Post charge to finalisation - DV Notify System
https://www.nsw.gov.au/legal-and-justice/dv-notify
Domestic violence digital notification service. Will provide DFV survivors with real time text and email updates from arrest of accused persons to final sentencing of offenders and notify is the accused leaves custody
12-month pilot program launched 2 November 2025. Joint Federal and State initiative – both governments invested $3.9m to design, build and pilot the system with the NSW Govt committing a further $8.9m in the 25/26 budget for planned expansion over the next 2 years
Trial being conducted in 3 areas: Liverpool Police Area Command, Manning-Great Lakes Police District and Orana-Mid Western Police District
Available in 10 languages and has been developed with victim survivors to meet their information needs and ensure cultural sensitivity
Once imprisoned, victims will need to get more information from the Victims register - no longer DV Notify
Victim survivors can opt out of notifications but cannot then opt back in at any stage
Criminal Justice System: Post sentencing
LSI-R Model (Level of Service Inventory – Revised)
Automated Decision Making (ADM) system - predictive risk assessment tool that is used in NSW to inform decisions about prison placement, therapeutic programs, correctional interventions and parole. Developed in 1995 in Canada, used in over 200 countries
Is the second iteration of the model - original model LSI was based on determining the level of supervision required for an offender, but revised model is used to identify the likelihood of reoffending based on risk factors and criminogenic need factors
Has 54 items grouped into 10 categories - Criminal History (10), Education/Employment (10), Financial (2), Family/Marital (3), Accommodation (3), Leisure/Recreation (2), Companions (5), Alcohol/Drug Problems (9), Emotional/Personal (5), and Attitudes/Orientation (4)
Questions have been raised for a significant time around the application to Australian offenders as it is a generalised system with datasets normed and developed on Canadian Caucasian male offenders
may have vast implications for female and minority offenders - systems have a heterogenic view of offenders.
Built in bias from data sets
cultural differences
forensic differences
socio-political differences
For example, Indigenous Canadian offenders indicated family/ marital discord or drug/ alcohol addiction with criminogenic needs, but Australian Indigenous persons did not
Related Resources
-
This PowerPoint, presented at the LSA Conference 2026, outlines how technology is reshaping the justice system and influencing key rule‑of‑law principles. It highlights impacts of digital surveillance, virtual courts, electronic monitoring and automated decision‑making, showing how technological tools can improve efficiency and access while also creating new risks for privacy, equality and the presumption of innocence.
-
This case noteoutlines how media can support or undermine justice, showing that reporting can enhance scrutiny and public awareness while also creating risks to fairness, impartiality and the presumption of innocence. Through case studies such as Witness J, Trace, The Teacher’s Pet, Singh, Dawson and Lehrmann, it illustrates how media coverage can inform, influence or distort legal processes and outcomes.
Explore Related Topics
-
Checks and Balances on Power
Explore resources on checks and balances, explaining how oversight limits power and ensures decisions remain lawful and accountable, supporting transparency, restraint, & responsible government action.
-
Open and Free Criticism
Explore resources on open and free criticism of law & government, showing how scrutiny of institutions strengthens accountability and supports a rule‑of‑law culture.
-
Human Rights
Explore resources on human rights, outlining key protections, and how rights are balanced against government power in Australia through constitutional principles, legislative safeguards and rule‑of‑law accountability.