48.26 Evidence at trial by videoconference

(1) If a party intends to adduce evidence at the trial of a proceeding by means of a videoconference, not later than 4 weeks before the date fixed for the trial, the party must –

(a) give to the other parties notice of that intention;
(b) file a copy of the notice; and

(c) deliver a copy of the notice to the trial Judge’s associate.

(2) A notice under subrule (1) is to –
(a) state the name of the witness;
(b) state the proposed time of the videoconference; and

(c) be accompanied by a copy of a statement of the witness’s evidence in chief signed by the witness.

(3) Within 7 days after receiving a notice under subrule (1), a party may object to the proposal contained in the notice.
(4) An objection under subrule (3) is to be dealt with by the trial Judge.

(5) If, within the period referred to in subrule (3), no objection to the proposal has been made, all parties to the proceeding are to be taken to have consented to the proposal.

(6) If an objection made in accordance with subrule (3) is upheld, the trial Judge may order that, regardless of the outcome of the proceeding, the party objecting pay as costs to the party who proposed the videoconference the difference between the costs of adducing the evidence by means of a videoconference and the costs of bringing the witness into the physical presence of the Court to adduce the evidence.

(7) At a videoconference under this rule, the evidence in chief of the witness is to be confined to the evidence in chief in the witness’s statement referred to in subrule (2)(c).

(8) The party proposing to adduce evidence by a videoconference under this rule must arrange and meet the expenses of the facilities necessary for the witness to give the evidence and for the trial Judge and the other parties to see and hear that evidence as it is given.

I read some of Hood’s stuff years ago, and he’s good value.

Rather than talking about disciplines, Hood talks about cultures — each with their own blind spots etc.

It’s interesting, and I can think of all sorts of ways of applying it, but I’m not sure how you could test it.

Has anyone read it? If so, what did you think?

I’m arguing for a kind of vigilance of commonsense here, rather than disciplinary balance. I’m arguing what I accept is quixotic in current circumstances, that each of the disciplines might seek to ameliorate their own biases to some extent, might encourage their practitioners to understand their own biases and allow for them a bit better.

I doubt Kieren Healy would argue that, but the passage I quoted does point to the failure of each of the disciplines and of the disciplines together as missing the important minutiae of institutional design.

I don’t fancy the idea of some other discipline squaring the circle and somehow injecting that into the mix to solve the problem. I don’t think it would succeed.

Is there nothing in the public policy/management literature that tries to combine institutional factors with some of the other disciplinary insights? Just wondering…

Regarding pharmaceuticals, apparently a recent US study found that the major pharma firms spend twice as much on advertising as they do on research, which rather undermines their argument for patent protection being required to make the whole show viable.