Remote hearings have evolved from a contingency, or highly specialised judicial space solution, to become a core operational capability within Australia’s justice system. The technology is now an established part of day-to-day justice operations, particularly for procedural hearings, interlocutory matters, mentions, and selected civil and appellate proceedings.
For judicial staff and professionals across all jurisdictions, this shift has materially changed the requirements for courtroom and remote hearing audiovisual (AV) systems. The question is no longer whether remote hearings can be supported, but how they can be delivered cost-effectively, reliably, equitably, and at scale - without compromising the fundamentals of justice.
Audiovisual conferencing systems have been used in Australian courts for decades, traditionally to enable the participation of incarcerated or vulnerable witnesses and geographically remote participants. What has changed is their frequency, expectations and reliance.
Today, remote and hybrid hearings are integral to day-to-day court practice. Courts have invested heavily in new technology infrastructure, issued formal guidance on appropriate use, and adopted online participation as an enduring element of the justice delivery process.
This evolution places new demands on AV systems and integrated conferencing solutions. Existing systems that were adequate for limited, supervised use and installed in dedicated specialist rooms are no longer sufficient when remote participation becomes routine, visible, and mission-critical.
Court video links have evolved in waves.
| ⇓ |
Early deployments typically used dedicated video-conferencing rooms, with standards such as ISDN-based calling, and later IP-based protocols such as H.323 and SIPs. Equipment was expensive, hardware-based, and required extensive integration to ensure successful deployment and a good user experience. Systems operated in dedicated rooms and imposed a significant administrative burden when connecting to other systems, particularly when connections were disparate or geographically dispersed. |
| ⇓ |
Software-based codecs that enabled broader internet-based access emerged over time. During the COVID-19 pandemic, technological development and user access accelerated rapidly. Newer cloud platforms (such as Microsoft Teams, Zoom, and Cisco Webex) have become easier to deploy, simpler to use, and have delivered streamlined workflows and connection methods. |
| ⇓ |
The current state is a shift towards a more integrated ‘justice AV’ approach, with multiple commercial-grade microphones and cameras, audio management, and evidential recording - all managed from a central control system. Remote connection is provided via the supported software platform and new, more secure data transport, such as TLS-encrypted signalling and SRTP-encrypted protocols. |
For decision-makers, the key takeaway is that today’s requirements are less about choosing a single video-calling product and more about ensuring all components work together reliably and deliver high-quality, commercial-grade audio and video, interoperability, and security across any judicial space.
The key areas that now need to be considered for any room are:
Remote hearings are not corporate meetings. Justice environments impose specific requirements that exceed standard conferencing expectations.
At a system level, courts require AV environments that:
Importantly, courts must support a wide range of participants, including judicial officers, legal practitioners, witnesses, self-represented litigants, corrections facilities, and regional users, many of whom do not control their connectivity, device quality, or environment.
Despite improvements in platforms and connectivity, persistent technical challenges remain. These are not peripheral issues; they are central to justice outcomes. Each requires specialised attention during design and configuration to ensure the exacting standards of justice systems are met.
While the judicial space may be well designed and integrated for optimal video conferencing, its effectiveness can be diminished by remote participants. These participants should also be guided and trained to present effectively.
Common challenges that often occur with remote parties include:
As remote hearings become business‑as‑usual, system purchase decisions must shift accordingly.
Justice AV is no longer about selecting a camera, display or software licence in isolation. It is about procuring integrated, purpose‑designed systems that:
The cost of failure is not merely technical inconvenience; it can mean adjournments, delays, user frustration and erosion of public confidence.
Redfish Technologies works with courts and justice agencies facing exactly these challenges. Rather than treating remote hearings as a generic IT problem, Redfish Technologies approaches them as justice‑critical AV environments.
The value delivered by Redfish Technologies lies in:
By focusing on fit-for-purpose justice AV, Redfish Technologies helps courts move beyond improvised setups toward repeatable, defensible, and scalable remote hearing environments.
Remote and hybrid hearings will remain a permanent and ongoing part of Australia’s judicial space. The strategic question for court leaders is how to ensure they enhance access to justice without creating new risks or inequities.
As expectations rise, AV systems must evolve accordingly. Those that succeed will be the ones designed specifically for the realities of justice: high‑stakes communication, operational pressure and the need for absolute clarity. This means prioritising decision-making on outcomes and features, towards an integrated room that encompasses all aspects required for these spaces . Doing so will not only improve system quality and reliability but also mitigate justice system interruptions and inefficiencies, where the return on investment really hits home.
Contact us to explore how Redfish Technologies can help to create remote hearing systems that meet the process requirements of your jurisdiction and operating environments.