Remote communication in criminal court proceedings: Experiences among courtroom professionals

Anni Lietonen; Julia Korkman; Regina den Otter; Dorris de Vocht

doi:10.35295/osls.iisl.2723

Authors

Anni Lietonen HEUNI, The European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, and Åbo Akademi University https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2574-4879
Julia Korkman HEUNI, The European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, and Åbo Akademi University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8734-9453
Regina den Otter Tilburg University https://orcid.org/0009-0006-1003-2278
Dorris de Vocht Tilburg University https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0094-8048

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2723

Keywords:

remote hearings, courtroom communication, digitalisation of justice, remote courtroom interaction

Abstract

The practice of remote court proceedings, which accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic, has become a permanent feature in criminal courts. However, questions remain as to how they may impact the interaction, participation and dynamics among legal professionals (judges, prosecutors, and lawyers) when communicating and interacting with parties in a manner that fulfils their obligation to ensure procedural justice. This paper presents a recent study examining how legal practitioners experience remote criminal proceedings in three EU countries (the Netherlands, Finland, and Sweden). Altogether, 37 judges, prosecutors and lawyers were interviewed on how hearing parties remotely affect courtroom communication. The study is part of a larger research project that also included questionnaire studies and courtroom observations. This article provides an in-depth analysis of legal professionals’ experiences, as well as the perceived benefits and pitfalls in remote courtroom communication, and offers recommendations for court professionals, drawing also on the broader data set.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Global Statistics

88 Views	37 Downloads
125 Total

Author Biographies

Anni Lietonen, HEUNI, The European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, and Åbo Akademi University

Anni Lietonen (M.Soc.Sc) works as a researcher at HEUNI is also currently a doctoral research at Åbo Akademi department of Law.

Julia Korkman, HEUNI, The European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, and Åbo Akademi University

Julia Korkman is a Senior Programme Officer at HEUNI and an adjunct professor (docent) in legal psychology. She works in the field of legal psychology and is a co-leader of the research group in legal psychology at Åbo Akademi unviersity.

Regina den Otter, Tilburg University

Regina den Otter is a researcher at the Tilburg Law School, Department of Criminal Law.

Dorris de Vocht, Tilburg University

Dorris de Vocht is an Associate Professor and a member of the management team of the Department of Criminal Law.
She obtained her Master's degree in Criminal Law (cum laude) and her PhD from Maastricht University.
Dorris has been involved in various European studies on procedural safeguards, such as the 'Young Suspects in Interrogation' project.

References

Ala-Kortesmaa, S., and Välikoski, T. R., 2023. Käräjätuomareiden kuunteluosaaminen ja vuorovaikutuksen rakentuminen rikosoikeudenkäynnin etäkuulemistilanteissa: Asian selvittämisen mahdollistaja ja oikeussalikokemuksen tuottaja. OIKEUS, (3), 170–190.

Ansems, L. F. M., 2021. Procedural justice on trial: A critical test of perceived procedural justice from the perspective of criminal defendants [online]. Dissertation. Utrecht University. Available at: https://doi.org/10.33540/499 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33540/499

Badowiec, R., 2024. Remote trial in criminal proceedings as a threat to the implementation of the principle of immediacy? Reflections on the background of the Polish legal order. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal [online], 10(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v10i2.985 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v10i2.985

Bailenson, J. N., 2021. Nonverbal overload: A theoretical argument for the causes of Zoom fatigue. Technology, Mind, and Behavior [online], 2(1), 1–6. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000030 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000030

Bandes, S., and Feigenson, N., 2021. Empathy and remote legal proceedings. Southwestern Law Review, 51(20), 20–39.

Bellone, E. T., 2024. Communicating with clients via videoconferencing: What defence attorneys are saying. Journal of Law and Social Deviance, 28, 1–54.

Belloni, P., Jaspaert, E., and De Vocht, D., 2025. Presence, proximity and participation: Online court communication from a procedural justice perspective. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice [online], 33(1–2), 154–186. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-bja10069 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-bja10069

Bohannon, L. S., et al., 2013. Eye contact and video-mediated communication: A review. Displays [online], 34(2), 177–185. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2012.10.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2012.10.009

Braun, V., and Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology [online], 3(2), 77–101. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Cody, S., and Koenig, A., 2018. Procedural justice in transnational context. Virginia Journal of International Law [online], 58(1). Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3192116

De Vocht, D. L. F., 2022. Trials by video link after the pandemic: The pros and cons of the expansion of virtual justice. China-EU Law Journal [online], 8(1–2), 33–44. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12689-022-00095-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12689-022-00095-9

Denault, V., Leclerc, C., and Talwar, V., 2025. The influence of extra-legal factors and nonverbal communication in virtual trials. International Criminology [online], 5(2), 166–177. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43576-025-00168-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43576-025-00168-2

Ervo, L., 2016. Facing people through language use – linguistic tools to make proceedings fair. International Journal of Legal Discourse [online], 1(2), 277–293. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2016-0015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2016-0015

Ervo, L., and Autio, A. L., 2022. Pandemian ja digitalisaation vaikutukset käräjäoikeuksien toimintaan. Lakimies, 120(5), 701–728.

European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), 2021. Guidelines on videoconferencing in judicial proceedings [online]. June: CEPEJ. Available at: https://edoc.coe.int/en/efficiency-of-justice/10706-guidelines-on-videoconferencing-in-judicial-proceedings.html#

Feigenson, N., 2023. Adjudication on Zoom and beyond: Human interaction in virtual courts. Washburn Law Journal, 62(3), 461–505.

Ferran, C., and Watts, S., 2008. Videoconferencing in the field: A heuristic processing model. Management Science [online], 54(9), 1565–1578. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0879 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0879

Flower, L., 2025a. The digital courtroom: Participation, attendance, engagement and consumption [online]. 1st ed. London: Routledge. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003344643 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003344643-1

Flower, L., 2025b. Virtual justice rituals: A sociological examination of the transition from physical presence to virtual participation. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice [online], 33(1–2), 64–83. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-bja10065 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-bja10065

Gabbert, F., et al., 2021. Exploring the use of rapport in professional information‐gathering contexts by systematically mapping the evidence base. Applied Cognitive Psychology [online], 35(2), 329–341. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3762 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3762

Gerson, K., and Damaske, S., 2020. The science and art of interviewing [online]. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199324286.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199324286.001.0001

Gibbs, P., 2017. Defendants on video—conveyor belt justice or a revolution in access? Transform Justice.

Given‐Wilson, Z., and Memon, A., 2022. Seeing is believing? A systematic review of credibility perceptions of live and remote video‐mediated communication in legal settings. Applied Cognitive Psychology [online], 36(6), 1168–1176. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4001

Grootelaar, H. A. M., and Van Den Bos, K., 2018. How litigants in Dutch courtrooms come to trust judges: The role of perceived procedural justice, outcome favorability, and other sociolegal moderators. Law & Society Review [online], 52(1), 234–268. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12315 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12315

Hallituksen esitys eduskunnalle etäyhteyksien käytön edistämisestä oikeudenkäynneissä yleisissä tuomioistuimissa koskevaksi lainsäädännöksi, HE 63/2024 (2024) [online]. Available at: https://www.finlex.fi/fi/hallituksen-esitykset/2024/63

Hiltunen, V., 2023. Etäyhteydet oikeudenkäynneissä. Oikeusministeriö.

Jämsä, J., and Korhonen, P., 2022. Sähköinen prosessi hovioikeudessä. Edilex Lakitieto.

Kallio, H., et al., 2016. Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing [online], 72(12), 2954–2965. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031

Korhonen, P., and Jämsä, J., 2021. Tuomioistuimen jäsenen osallistuminen oikeudenkäyntiin etäyhteydellä. Defensor Legis, 2021(3), 700–710.

Kvale, S., and Brinkmann, S., 2015. InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. 3rd ed. London: Sage.

Landström, S., Willén, R., and Bylander, E., 2012. Rättspraktikers inställning till modern ljud- och bildteknik i rättssalen—En rättspsykologisk studie | SvJT. Svensk Juristtidning, (3), 197–218.

Licoppe, C., 2015. Video communication and “camera actions”. Journal of Pragmatics [online], 76, 117–134. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.008

Lilja, I., and Hiilloskivi, M., 2022. Etäkuuleminen keinona suojella rikoksen uhria. Oikeus, Lyhyitä Kirjoituksia, 1/2022(51), 141–148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/infle.051.0141

Luke, T. J., 2019. Lessons from Pinocchio: Cues to deception may be highly exaggerated. Perspectives on Psychological Science [online], 14(4), 646–671. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619838258 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619838258

Luke, T. J., et al., 2025. What have we learned about cues to deception? A survey of expert opinions. Psychology, Crime & Law [online], 31(5), 511–530. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2023.2292504 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2023.2292504

Martschuk, N., et al., 2024. Remote witnesses: Improving their experience of technology, orientation and environment when participating via audio-visual links. Tilburg Law Review [online], 29(2), 144–163. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5334/tilr.390 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/tilr.390

McKay, C., 2026. Remote vulnerable witnesses, complainants and victims. In: C. McKay, Digital vulnerability in criminal justice [online]. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 83–107. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-10028-3_5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-10028-3_5

McKay, C., and Macintosh, K., 2024. Remote criminal justice and vulnerable individuals: Blunting emotion and empathy? Tilburg Law Review [online], 29(2), 125–143. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5334/tilr.386 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/tilr.386

Morrison, J., et al., 2019. Communication and cross-examination in court for children and adults with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof [online], 23(4), 366–398. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712719851134 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712719851134

Mulcahy, L., 2010. Legal architecture: Justice, due process and the place of law. London: Routledge.

Mulcahy, L., and Tsalapatanis, A., 2022. Exclusion in the interests of inclusion: Who should stay offline in the emerging world of online justice? Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law [online], 44(4), 455–476. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2022.2136713 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2022.2136713

Oleszkiewicz, S., et al., 2024. Building trust to enhance elicitation. International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence [online], 37(2), 666–687. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/08850607.2023.2255507 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08850607.2023.2255507

Owusu-Bempah, A., 2018. The interpretation and application of the right to effective participation. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof [online], 22(4), 321–341. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712718780800 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712718780800

Peristeridou, C., and De Vocht, D., 2023. “I’m not a cat!” Remote criminal justice and a human-centred approach to the legitimacy of the trial. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law [online], 30(2), 97–106. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X231193214 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X231193214

Rossner, M., and Tait, D., 2024. Virtual technology and the changing rituals of courtroom justice. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 98(1), 251.

Rossner, M., Tait, D., and McCurdy, M., 2021. Justice reimagined: Challenges and opportunities with implementing virtual courts. Current Issues in Criminal Justice [online], 33(1), 94–110. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2020.1859968 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2020.1859968

Sanders, A., 2021. Video-hearings in Europe before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal for Court Administration [online], 12(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.379 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.379

Turner, J. I., 2025. Rethinking courtroom presence in the virtual era. Indiana Law Journal [online], 101(1). Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol101/iss1/1/

Tyler, T., 2007. Court review: Volume 44, issue 1/2 – Procedural justice and the courts. The Journal of the American Judges Association, 44(1-2).

Vavonese, L. B., et al., 2020. How video changes the conversation: Social science research on communication over video and implications for the criminal courtroom [online]. National Legal Aid/Defender Association/Center for Court Innovation.

Available at: https://www.innovatingjustice.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2020/Monograph_RemoteJustice_12032020.pdf

Vrij, A., Hope, L., and Fisher, R. P., 2014. Eliciting reliable information in investigative interviews. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences [online], 1(1), 129–136. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214548592 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214548592

Westlund, O., and Eriksson, A., 2013. Bemötande i domstol. Brottsförebyggande rådet.

Wilkman, J., Antfolk, J. and Korkman, J., 2024. Finnish district judges’ assessments of live versus video‐mediated party statements in court. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology [online], 65(5), 827–845. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.13024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.13024