Distinguished Minister,
Honourable justices and staff of the Riga Regional Court,
Dear ladies and gentlemen,
I Role of Judges
Democracy and rule of law cannot be taken for granted. Democratic states governed by the rule of law cannot be taken for granted. Judges and other constitutional state bodies protect democratic systems governed by the rule of law. Judges have the responsibility to ensure that laws adopted for the people are applied in a fair manner.
Judges are strongly connected to the state. When ensuring fair trial and enforcing the will of the people and principles established in law in a particular case, judges are required to follow the core values of rule of law. Confident judge is at the centre of fair judicial system. Confidence is one of the key elements of being a judge. Confidence of judges is the backbone of justice and judicial system.
It is the duty of judges to protect the fundamental values of democracy. That is the only way to build overall public trust in the system and ensure that society recognises the judicial decisions of courts and believes that they have been made in a fair manner, with best interests of the society in mind.
Confident adjudication not influenced by public opinion and media is a professional quality judges should develop. Confident judge will always be ready to innovate. Judicial systems would become stagnant if judges followed the existing case law without challenging it. Confidence to create future change inevitably influences legislature. That is how judges contribute to development of law and legislature may decide to convert considerations given in particular judgement into general rules someday.
Judges need confidence to diverge from case law when such departure is necessary and such necessity can be legally justified. Personal conviction and accrued experience are among the factors that may lead to such deviation. Nevertheless, such actions are democratic and contribute to evolution of judicial system. If there is no methodological contradiction, such departure is acceptable.
Judges ensure the compliance with principles of the rule of law. This requires judge to be free from external and internal influence. Decisiveness, independence, ability to reason and defend one’s position. Quite often the negative public image of courts portrayed by the losing party is not rebuked publicly.
Civic society has diverse range of rights and takes active participation in governance processes. Confident judges, who are ready to work together with the state and not against it, have the duty to stub out any attempts to weaken state institutions, bring them to standstill, undermine integrity of civil service or public officials.
That is why judges need specific training. If judge comes across such attempts, he or she must have confidence that their legitimate judicial decisions will comply with applicable ethical standards. In other words, they must be able to face masses and say, ‘My decision to recognise someone’s actions as justified was based on ethical considerations and perception of what is good and acceptable’. For example, judge cannot publicly announce that attempts to undermine authorities or campaigns targeting individuals are good and acceptable. All judgements made by judges need to be based on ethical consideration, meet ethical standards. Judges need training to be able to identify such cases and integrate ethical standards in their interpretation of the law. That is the so-called good practice for courts.
II Role of court staff
I began by describing the role of judges, but court staff also plays equally important role. Court employees play a very significant and important role in ensuring acceptable and efficient operation of the whole court system. Court employees play equally important role in that. Court employees play an important role in ensuring that the overall quality of court system is achieved.
Work of court staff is probably not always as visible. Nevertheless, they are the ones who assist the judge in adjudication. In other words, they help judges perform their duties, special functions that only judges have been trusted with and can fulfil. If judge has a reliable support staff, the whole court will perform well and do right.
The way in which court employees communicate with parties to the case and society in general contributes to how parties to the case will think about the forthcoming proceeding in terms of it being fair and efficient. Understanding and accessible court employee, who communicates on behalf of judge with parties to the case, contributes to the image of particular judge and gives insight into how the proceeding will go. Court staff gives the judge assurance that once they step into the courtroom the proceeding will go according to plan and will be productive.
III E-justice
Let me conclude by sharing my views on e-justice. Modern courts must change along with societal changes. That, however, is not an end in itself. Integration of any technology must be aligned with public interests and ensure that courts work better.
Increasing public role of information technologies and artificial intelligence requires courts to focus on access to justice and development of e-services.
We are already using new technologies in scope of proceedings and to communicate with parties to the case. The role of technologies will only continue to rise. Latvia has done substantial homework to prepare itself for this challenge, and our efforts in implementing modern technologies throughout courts have been acknowledged and recognised internationally.
International and European benchmarking studies show that Latvia is one of the leaders in terms of digital transformation of legal profession. We are definitely among leading countries in Europe and also the world. I am very happy about such and achievement and believe we should emphasise it more. Just as the saying suggests, ‘Do good and spread the word’.
Active use of various e-services and modern technologies in courts promotes public access to courts and speeds up litigations. However, courts need to continuously follow the newest technological developments because digital technologies are constantly moving forward.
The purpose of all available technology is to improve the performance of courts. There has already been a discussion on whether a judge can be replaced by e-judge or a robot. My answer from a philosophical, political, ethical and legal point of view is clear: ‘No!’. So, dear colleagues, you will never lose your job. My philosophy is that only humans can make legally binding decisions regarding other humans, and that is the line which artificial intelligence will never cross. Artificial intelligence can aid a judge in deciding a case, but it should never take justice’s place.
One of the areas rife with untapped potential and new opportunities is court data processing systems. It would be a useful tool, for example, for those who want to estimate litigation costs, length of trial and projected outcomes based on case law in similar cases even before going to court. It would also give good hints as to what are the alternative settlement options. Joint implementation of project for development of ‘E-evidence platform’ is also crucial. I think that it is a good example of how digital solutions can help judges, courts, and, of course, more importantly, the citizens who need to access court services.
Riga Regional Court is open to new pilot projects. To me, that is a commendable quality. Testing and introduction of new research-based solutions and ideas requires time and knowledge that the court is willing to invest. That is how Riga Regional Court generates bold and innovative solutions that maximise not only the efficiency of court but also benefits the whole judicial system.
I wish you a successful and productive meeting!
