Stage 1: Municipal Court  | Authenticity (Paper vs Digital Documents)

In stage 1, the primary focus is on the evidence presented by the parties involved, their claims and counterclaims to discover the truth.  

Traditional Methodology – Paper Documents

In stage 1 of the traditional appeal process, the focus is on the authenticity of the evidence. Municipal courts largely base their decisions on evidence presented as paper-based documents, witness and expert statements, and minutes, to establish the facts of the case. After the decisions are made, the court creates a paper-based case file which would be examined by higher courts in case of appeal.  

However, with paper documents alone, it is difficult to establish if the evidence is authentic due to the lack of available information on its origins, modifications, timestamps, submission or change traces, and ownership of the information. Moreover, paper documents are susceptible to physical degradation, loss, and tampering, further complicating the verification process. 

It is assumed that the principle of authentic evidence has been upheld. However, such assumptions are not always justified, leading to some case files containing misleading information. For example:

• An expert witness claims that an application form dated 1971 includes a cadastral plan from 1977 as its integral part. This is problematic because it suggests that a document from the future was included in an earlier application, which is not possible.
• An expert witness claims that he conducted his study in 2008 with NM’s permission. However, NM died in 1971, making it impossible for NM to have granted permission.

Case files containing such statements will ultimately be open to public scrutiny, and misleading or inaccurate information will trigger a lack of trust. 

Such challenges underscore the need for more reliable methods to ensure the integrity and continuity of evidence from the initial stages of the legal process. Merely assuming the authenticity of evidence and the transparency of the process is insufficient to secure citizens’ trust in the integrity of legal practice. It is essential not only to ensure these aspects but also to visibly demonstrate them to maintain public confidence.

Digital tools can effectively overcome many of the shortcomings of traditional methodologies in the legal process. By digitising evidence and using AI and other digital resources, we can embed metadata that captures, interprets, and tracks documents’ origins, modifications, timestamps, and ownership, as well as flagging content that is unverified. We can not do the same with paper documents, making it more difficult to ensure the authenticity of paper-based evidence. Digital records, on the other hand, are easier to track and audit, ensuring that any changes or submissions are logged and transparent. Additionally, AI and similar technologies can help analyse patterns and detect anomalies, providing an extra layer of security and reliability to the evidence management process. While these digital tools can flag potential issues, this does not provide solutions or make judgments; it simply highlights areas that require further human review and intervention.

Below is an example that shows how easily the necessary information can be accessed for review and intervention, enabling judges and parties involved in the process to ensure authenticity and uphold the integrity of the legal system.

The case file below contains evidence in the form of digital legal documents, which are made tamper-proof with advanced cybersecurity measures to ensure the continuity of authentic evidence. It is likely that citizens’ trust in the legal system would improve if it can be demonstrated that the courts followed the principles of authentic evidence and transparent processes when reaching credible decisions. In other words, legal practice should be open to scrutiny.

Below is an example demonstrating how easily evidence can be uploaded and accessed for review and intervention, enabling judges and involved parties to ensure authenticity and integrity. A case file containing evidence in the form of digital legal documents can be made tamper-proof using technologies like cybersecurity measures, ensuring the continuity and security of authentic evidence.

Therefore, citizens’ trust in the legal system would likely improve if courts adhere to the principles of authentic evidence and transparent processes when making decisions, effectively utilizing digital resources. This approach ensures that legal practices can be examined when necessary, reinforcing public confidence in judicial outcomes that are both traceable and transparent.

Stage 2: Transparency (access to information sent by Municipal Court to County Court)

The Right to Appeal: From Municipal Court to County Court

When the municipal court rules on a case, any dissatisfied party has the legal right to appeal the decision. The appellant must submit a written appeal along with all supporting evidence to the same court that issued the original ruling. The same court will then compile a case file with the relevant documents and forward it to the county court for further review. The authenticity and continuity of the evidence in this file are assumed.

In the appeal process, the county court’s primary focus is to ensure that the municipal court has followed an orderly procedure. The county court then examines the case file to determine if the municipal court’s decision is fair, ethical, and just. 

The County court decisions are based on:

• Assumed Orderly Procedure: The municipal court upholds transparency by following prescribed legal practices, including hearing witnesses, examining documents, and producing records of hearings.
• Assumed Accuracy: The county court trusts that the municipal court has conducted all necessary authenticity verifications, thus no further examination of the case file’s accuracy is required at this stage.

In this context, it is assumed that the continuity of evidence has been safeguarded during the transfer between courts, ensuring the transparency of the process. However, the general public may not share this trust, as neither the authenticity nor the continuity of the evidence may have been independently verified before reaching the county court. 

Digital Methods to Replace Assumptions with Verified Facts Supporting the Principle of Transparency

The municipal court, whose decision is being challenged, determines which evidence is relevant and compiles the case file. However, this process lacks external scrutiny, as access to the case file is not allowed before it is forwarded to the county court. To enhance public trust, it is crucial that evidence deemed irrelevant by the municipal court is not excluded without thorough examination. Digital methods provide the necessary tools for independent verification, ensuring all pertinent evidence is included and adequately reviewed.

This approach reinforces the integrity and transparency of the judicial process, replacing assumptions with verified facts and fostering greater public confidence in the legal system. Therefore, the county court can rely on digital resources to confirm that the municipal court followed an orderly procedure and used verified, authentic evidence to make a fair, ethical, and just decision. By incorporating digital verification, the judicial system can ensure accountability and transparency at every stage, ultimately enhancing the credibility of legal outcomes.

Stage 3 and Stage 4:- Credibility of Court Decisions vs Citizen Rights guaranteed by Constitution

The Right to Appeal: From County Court to Supreme Court and Constitutional Court

While there is no further appeal against the county court’s decision, a dissatisfied party can request a judicial review by the Supreme Court to ensure that the process has been lawful. Additionally, a review by the Constitutional Court can be sought to ensure that citizens’ rights guaranteed by the Constitution have been respected and upheld throughout the judicial process.

Nevertheless, in traditional legal practice, we can still find statements in public legal documents such as: 

“The fact that Judge T.S. was in a conflict of interest due to his family relations with the defendants does not bring into question his impartiality.”

 This example demonstrates that the outcomes of traditional reviews into lawfulness and citizens’ rights can still contain questionable statements.

By leveraging digital court records and digital paper trails, this multi-tiered appeal system can offer a more thorough and transparent review, significantly enhancing the fairness and integrity of the legal system in the eyes of the public.

Digital Methodology

Furthermore, digital tools can provide reliable information throughout the judicial process—from verified documents and tamper-proof processes, through digital court records to a complete digital paper trail, all open to scrutiny.

AI-based tools can utilize search mechanisms through the digital court records and the digital paper trail. One of their main benefits lies in their ability to intelligently interpret texts containing large amounts of information. However, they rely heavily on external sources of information—provided these sources are independently trustworthy.

Digital resources and AI tools can safeguard a fourth principle of trustworthy legal practice, namely: