ML (Use of Skype Technology), Re

Skype may be used in family proceedings where it provides a reliable and suitably secure means of obtaining evidence or recording legally significant participation. Its use is more readily appropriate for witnessing consent or other informal processes than for taking evidence in a court hearing. Direct Skype evidence should generally be avoided where an alternative exists because of concerns about audio-visual quality, recording and security. A mediated connection between Skype and the court’s ISDN system may provide an adequate and substantially cheaper alternative for witnesses in remote locations.

The judgment recorded two recent uses of Skype technology in family proceedings. In an adoption case involving a child brought from Nepal, the child’s parents were interviewed by a local lawyer and their consent forms were witnessed in real time from England by the Guardian and the child’s solicitor using Skype. In a separate relocation application involving evidence from a witness in Colombia, the court initially refused an application to take evidence directly by Skype. The issue was whether a technically reliable and suitably secure method could be found for receiving evidence from a remote witness.

1. Adoption consent. Skype was appropriately used to allow the Guardian and the child’s solicitor in England to observe interviews conducted by a local lawyer with the child’s parents in Nepal. The parents signed consent forms by thumbprint in real time, and the process was recorded photographically. The arrangement satisfied the court that the consent was free and unconditional and that there had been no financial inducement.
2. Direct Skype evidence. Direct use of Skype for evidence in a court environment was refused. Although the technology can be effective for informal purposes, it presents difficulties concerning whether all participants can see and hear adequately, how evidence is recorded, and security. The court would not use direct Skype evidence where an alternative was available.
3. Mediated connection. The difficulties were overcome by a service providing a bridge between the witness’s Skype connection and the court’s ISDN system. The mediation improved protection against hacking and enabled the witness to give evidence for about an hour at a cost of approximately £150, compared with about £1,200 for a full ISDN link. The quality of the connection was adequate.
4. The judgment therefore recognised that a mediated Skype-to-ISDN system may be suitable for hearings involving witnesses in remote locations, particularly where it reduces otherwise high international video-conferencing costs. Its suitability remains dependent on the quality, recording arrangements and security of the particular system.