Folkemødet ('The People's Meeting') on Bornholm is an annual event that brings together politicians, organizations, and citizens for debate and dialogue on current societal issues.
This year we had the initiative to host a debate on the topic:
"Is transparency of the courts and their case law necessary for a good legal system? And how much case law do we need?"
In the debate, we had a diverse panel of experts, each representing important viewpoints in this discussion, which is both one of practicality, technology and ideology.
Participants:
- Henrik Palmer Olsen, Professor Dr. Jur.
- Frederik Waage, Professor Dr. Jur.
- Merethe Eckhardt - Director of Development at the The Courts of Denmark
- Martin Lavesen - Chairman of the Danish Bar and Law Society and Country Managing Partner at DLA Piper Denmark.
The purpose of the debate was to explore the history of case law publishing and why it’s important to have access to more case law data in a digital age. The debate also touched on what data is relevant and the limitations for publishing more case law.
Key takeaways
- We need more data and insight. Perhaps unsurprisingly, all of the panelists agreed that more data would be useful. It was argued that it’s quite urgently needed, since we currently don't necessarily have an accurate understanding of how the laws are manifested at the court level. We simply have the technology to handle more case law data than we have available today. Additionally, it was argued that it would mitigate the siloed knowledge of each individual judge.
- Relevant data. It was argued that not all cases are appropriate for publication, either due to special protections, or due to lack of legal or public value. That is to say, the value of some case law would not outweigh the costs of publishing them. On the other hand, it was argued that the job of sorting the data and finding what's valuable could be left for the private industry and that the public merely should publish as much as possible.
Conclusion
In Denmark there’s not immediate expectation of any significant increase in the amount of court rulings that will be published in the coming years.
A conclusion among the panellists seemed to be that collaboration across the industry might be the best way of achieving a higher rate of transparency in the practice of the Danish courts.
We would like to extend our warmest thanks to the panellists for participating, and a shout-out to our very own Jonas No Sjølund for moderating the debate, and doing a killer job at it!
