The study's key findings are sharply delineated between vulnerable witnesses versus vulnerable defendants.

Vulnerable witnesses: Regarding vulnerable prosecution witnesses and complainants, there are tangible benefits stemming from remote participation for victim conferencing or in court, particularly in shielding them from the stress, intimidation and trauma of the adversarial courtroom. For these individuals, the study found that videolinks are techniques of mitigation that ameliorate vulnerabilities, enhance recall, facilitate the presentation of their best and most coherent evidence and enhance access to justice.

However, the study also points to potential forensic disadvantages for the prosecution case when a vulnerable witness appears via pre-recorded or remote testimony, as the emotional weight may be sanitised by technological mediation.

Vulnerable defendants: For vulnerable defendants, remote modes of legal conferencing and court appearance are positive in avoiding prison-court transport, and disruptions to prison accommodation.  

Nonetheless, many defence lawyers emphasised that remote modes are not suitable replacements for face-to-face meetings, particularly when discussing sensitive matters that require confidentiality. Remote modes can also impede the identification of 'markers of vulnerability' in defendants, undermining the ability to provide informed legal advice, and raise available defences and mitigating factors. More broadly, videolinks were perceived as inhibiting human connection, communication, engagement and participation in criminal process, leading to vulnerable defendants' 'muted' comprehension. Even though vulnerable defendants often share the same attributes as vulnerable witnesses, the study found defendants' vulnerabilities are insufficiently addressed and/or often exacerbated by communication technologies. Because videolinks can compound the vulnerabilities of remote defendants, the study found that they can be conceptualised as techniques of intensification that generate barriers to justice. Courts and lawyers must be aware of the need to tailor the technological experience for vulnerable defendants.

All vulnerable individuals: The study revealed universal experiences of videolinks. Both vulnerable witnesses and defendants were similarly impacted by social disadvantage, notably in relation to computer literacy, and access to optimal digital devices and internet services. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, whether witnesses or defendants, the increased use of videolinks, instead of in-person community justice, may be perceived as a virtually-mediated continuation of colonial violence.

Theoretically: The study has contributed new insights into 'digital vulnerability' as a framework for conceptually capturing the convergence of technologies and vulnerability in criminal procedure. With this understanding, videolinks were found to act paradoxically in mitigating and intensifying vulnerabilities by simultaneously supporting and depleting resilience; humanising and dehumanising individuals; and connecting and disconnecting them from effective participation, comprehension and communication.

Future visions

Despite concerns of digitalised criminal justice generating 'second-rate justice', participants broadly supported expanding the use of, and facilities for, videolinks throughout criminal courts and justice agencies. An overarching caveat was that technologies should not replace the human element, particularly for vulnerable people, or substantive criminal procedures.