CA2820657A1 - System and method for reducing trial requests and backlog of court cases - Google Patents

Abstract

Systems and methods are provided for scheduling a hearing for a court case.
Information identifying a case and an official associated with the case is obtained. A
date for scheduling the hearing within a short interval is determined by obtaining a suitable date where the suitable date is selected to be a date on which the official is scheduled to appear for other hearings and where there is sufficient unused court time (slack) for the addition of the new case. The system provides for assignment of each official to the backlog of cases on a rotation basis (for example, 2-4 week cycles) and leaving sufficient slack in these schedules for the backlogs to permit the insertion of new cases into these schedules.

Description

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR REDUCING TRIAL REQUESTS AND
BACKLOG OF COURT CASES
BACKGROUND
The present disclosure relates to systems and methods for managing the scheduling of court cases. More particularly, the present disclosure relates to the scheduling and management of court cases associated with parking fines, but is also applicable to traffic cases (for example, pertaining to speeding violations and signal light violations) , and other types of courts.
The scheduling and management of court cases, particular those related to the payment of fines, is a complex process that involves significant municipal costs and resources. Court resources are typically limited by the number and availability of physical courts, judges and other court and administrative personnel and facilities. In many metropolitan centers, court systems are struggling under heavy case backlogs, which reduce the rates of case clearance and fine payment, and even worse, increase the backlogs of court cases in some instances.
Such an adverse situation often arises due to a general awareness by the public that the court system may be manipulated to their benefit. For example, public media such as blogs, intemet chat rooms and forums, and general word of mouth promote public awareness that the time delay involved in getting a court hearing can be very long, in some cases up to 1 1/2 years, and that a case may never get to trial. This information motivates the public not to pay their fines and to file for trials instead, As a result, some jurisdictions are crippled with an ever increasing case backlog, while at the same time experiencing lower or no fines awarded by the courts partly due to such delays.
For example, in the city of Toronto, about 11% of ticketed persons during 2010 filed for a court hearing instead of opting to pay their parking fines; this is up from 2.5%
in 2004, since when the percentage of court filings has increased at an accelerating rate. It is evident that in the majority of this increased number of court requests, the request for trial is made to delay fine payment or to delay the trial date with the hope the case will never come to court at all or will eventually result in a reduced fine or no fine awarded by the presiding judge. Alternatively the court filing is to "buy time" for the ticketed person for a decision whether to pay the fine or proceed with the court action.
In either case the high number of spurious court requests is costly for the jurisdiction.
It is important to note that in Toronto, during 2010, about 60% of the original trial requests were abandoned before reaching court. This illustrates that most of these 60%
of trial requests were intended to delay payments or "buy time" of about 1 year for a pay/no pay decision on fines. Nonetheless, these 60% proved costly to the Parking Ticket Operations.
As a result, profits associated with the payment of parking fines in Toronto have recently decreased by over 50% from $45M in 2009 to $22M (as currently budgeted for 2011). On the other hand, court costs have increased fourfold, trial requests have tripled, and the number of parking tickets paid within the same year as their year of issuance has fallen from 58% to 51%.

SUMMARY
Systems and methods are provided for scheduling hearings or trials for new court cases, where the new court cases are scheduled to be heard within a relatively short time duration from trial request (for example, a few weeks). This method of scheduling new cases is intended to reduce or eliminate an incentive to request a trial which would otherwise lead to an increase in the backlog of these newly requested court cases.
Accordingly, when a person applies for a court hearing, he or she is quickly or immediately provided with a available court session in the immediate future (1 to 4 weeks or so from the date of the court request).
According to one embodiment, an official who is associated with the newly requested court case (for example, the official is a police officer or parking officer who issued a traffic or parking ticket) is already scheduled to attend this court session and the specific court session is scheduled to provide available time (slack) for the newly requested court case. This provision is due to the fact that when the schedule for this court session is initially created for a number of old backlog court cases, the number of old backlog cases assigned to these sessions are deliberately set below the capacity of these sessions (i.e. significant slack was left in these sessions) to permit additional new cases to be inserted into these sessions. In addition, the respective officers associated with the old backlogged cases are assigned to trials at a selected frequency (for example, every few weeks) and so as to provide for any new trial request to be assigned to the correspondent official's trial session within a short time period (for example, within a few weeks).

As noted above, embodiments of the disclosed systems and methods provides for newly requested court cases to be heard within a comparatively short time (such as within a few weeks) and therefore the system may be effective in discouraging ticketed persons from "buying time". It is expected that in many cases, the system may encourage ticketed persons to make an on the spot decision whether to go to court or pay the fine.
On the other hand, the system may significantly benefit requesters of a hearing, who have a genuine cause, by providing them an early resolution of the case while the alleged infraction is still freshly in their mind and not obscured by the passage of time.
In one embodiment, the amount of slack provided in the schedules for the old backlog of cases is determined based on the prior experience with or measurements of the rate of new cases. For example, if previously new court case requests were made at the rate of 25% of requests prior to the disclosed scheduling system, the slack provided in schedules for the backlog will be approximately 25%. At the start of the implementation of the disclosed system, the slack will be based on estimates of the impact of the new system on reducing the rate of new court requests.
In some situations, some officials could be assigned to new or "empty" trial sessions (100% slack) which would be filled only by new trial requests.
If it turns out that the slack provided in the schedules for the backlog of cases is too great and results in underutilization of the available court capacity, the slack for subsequent backlog schedules can be reduced to provide for filling more of the court capacity.
In one aspect, the proposed system is initiated with the scheduling of future court schedules for the large backlog of unscheduled court requests. In addition to purposely not filling each court session to capacity, i.e. leaving significant slack for additional new court cases in each court session, the disclosed system may also schedule the backlog cases such that officials associated with the cases (for example, ticket issuing officers) are rotated into sequential court sessions according to a prescribed schedule or prescribed frequency. For example, the officials may be scheduled to appear in court every 1, 2, 3 or 4 weeks (possibly more) so as to balance the efficient assignment of officials to court schedules versus providing for as early as possible court hearings for new court cases.
Accordingly, the scheduling of the backlog of court requests may begin by grouping court requests separately for each official (for example, each officer who has issued parking tickets) and then assigning these cases for each official into a cyclical (e.g. weekly) pattern.
For example, in an embodiment associated with parking ticket court cases, if each of the active officers is assigned to a court session every three weeks and there is sufficient slack left in these court sessions, new court requests can be assigned court hearings within one, two or three weeks from request, depending on which of these three weeks the corresponding officer is assigned to a court session. New officers who have not issued tickets for the backlog already will be scheduled into court sessions a few weeks into the future so that additional persons requesting a court hearing who were ticketed by these new officers can be assigned to the corresponding court sessions. It is noted that in jurisdictions where ticket issuing officers or other resource persons are not required to attend trials, the scheduling simplifies to just allowing slack in the schedules for the backlog without regard to the officers who issued the tickets.
Accordingly, in one aspect, there is provided a computer implemented method of scheduling backlog court hearings associated with backlog court hearing requests such that slack is provided for additional scheduling of newly requested court hearings, the method including the steps of: determining an operational date for implementing scheduling of the backlog court hearings; determining an estimated rate of new hearing requests, wherein the estimated rate of new hearing requests pertains to a time after the operational date; searching a court docketing database and identifying officials associated with the backlog court hearing requests; dividing the backlog court hearing requests associated with each official into case groups and scheduling backlog court hearings associated with the case groups within court sessions occurring after the operational date;
wherein the case groups are scheduled such that slack is provided to accommodate future scheduling of additional hearings within each court session, where the amount of slack provided within each court session is determined based on the estimated rate of new hearing requests; and wherein the case groups are scheduled such that each official appears for hearings on a repeat basis as per a scheduled interval.
The method may further include the scheduling a newly requested hearing according to the steps of: receiving case identification information identifying a new case and a specific official associated with the new case;
searching the court docketing database for a selected court session for scheduling the newly requested hearing, wherein the selected court session is the next court session for which the specific official is scheduled to appear in court and sufficient slack exists to accommodate scheduling of the newly requested hearing; and scheduling the newly requested hearing for the selected court session.
A further understanding of the functional and advantageous aspects of the disclosure can be realized by reference to the following detailed description and drawings.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
Embodiments will now be described, by way of example only, with reference to the drawings, in which:
Figure 1 illustrates an example of the process of scheduling the backlog of trial requests into the court dockets for upcoming trials;
Figure 2 illustrates an example of the process of scheduling a newly requested court case into a court session;Figure 3 illustrates a non-limiting example of how the existing system would address a specific example ticket through various stages and how the disclosed system would address the same example ticket;
Figure 4 shows a computing system for implementing the method of scheduling the old backlog of cases into partially filled court sessions and the insertion of new court cases into these sessions;
Figure 5 shows a system for implementing the method of scheduling a new court case over a remote network.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION
Various embodiments and aspects of the disclosure will be described with reference to details discussed below. The following description and drawings are illustrative of the disclosure and are not to be construed as limiting the disclosure.
Numerous specific details are described to provide a thorough understanding of various embodiments of the present disclosure. However, in certain instances, well-known or conventional details are not described in order to provide a concise discussion of embodiments of the present disclosure.
As used herein, the terms, "comprises" and "comprising" are to be construed as being inclusive and open ended, and not exclusive. Specifically, when used in the specification and claims, the terms, "comprises" and "comprising" and variations thereof mean the specified features, steps or components are included. These terms are not to be interpreted to exclude the presence of other features, steps or components.
As used herein, the term "exemplary" means "serving as an example, instance, or illustration," and should not be construed as preferred or advantageous over other configurations disclosed herein.
As used herein, the terms "about" and "approximately", when used in conjunction with ranges of dimensions of particles, compositions of mixtures or other physical properties or characteristics, are meant to cover slight variations that may exist in the upper and lower limits of the ranges of dimensions so as to not exclude embodiments where on average most of the dimensions are satisfied but where statistically dimensions may exist outside this region. It is not the intention to exclude embodiments such as these from the present disclosure.

As used herein, the term "database," is intended to refer to any organized body of data, regardless of the manner in which the data or the organized body thereof is represented. The data may be stored in one or more memory devices, such as a table, a linked list, or some other arrangement of data. Non-limiting examples of databases include limitation flat file databases, fielded databases, full-text databases, object-oriented databases, and relational databases.
As used herein, the terms "parking ticket", "ticket", "parking tag" and "tag"
refer to the notification of a parking infraction, usually by provided as a card attached to the windshield of the offending vehicle. The ticket typically contains the salient information including, but not limited to, vehicle license number, date/time and location of the offense, classification of the offense, fine, ticket issuing officer, officer number and signature, and follow up instructions.
As used herein, the term "court" is a physical court, such as, but not limited to, a court that deals partly or entirely with parking infractions. Typically, a jurisdiction operates several courts for hearing trials for parking infractions.
As used herein, the terms "court session" and "session" refer to a continuous session of a court. A typical court session lasts for a duration of two to four hours.
As used herein, the terms "court case" and "case" are associated with a specific trial, such as, but not limited to, one parking infraction.
As used herein, the terms "court request", "hearing request", and "request"
refer to the application for the assignment of a court session. The application may include the trial court, court location, trial date and time, to provide for the ticketed person an opportunity to contest the alleged infraction or to plead guilty requesting a reduced or no fine.
As used herein, the term "old court request" refers to a request in the backlog file which has been made before the start of the operation of the disclosed system and has not been allocated to a court session by the start of the disclosed system.
As used herein, the term "new court request" refers to a request made after the start of the operation of the disclosed system.
As used herein, the term "official" is an official associated with a court case, where the presence of the official is required at or relevant to the court case hearing. In one non-limiting example, the official may be an officer, such as a police officer or parking officer who is the specific officer who issued a specific parking or traffic violation ticket.
As used herein, the term "slack" is the time left in a session for the backlog to allow for additional cases to be added to this backlog session.
In one embodiment, a method is provided for scheduling a court case in order to reduce a backlog of cases. The new cases are scheduled within a short time interval from the corresponding trial requests. This new scheduling protocol is rapid when compared to a previous scheduling interval of months or years to obtain a trial date before the introduction of the present system.
The case backlog may exist, for example, due to abuse of the court system, where such abuse arises from a public awareness that requesting a trial can result in a long delay to a hearing, possibly no hearing at all or a lower cost or no cost than the fine on the original ticket. For example, the public may be aware that requesting a trial, instead of payment of a fine associated with an offence, may result in such favourable outcomes as causing a substantial delay prior to the need to provide payment of a fine, or the discarding or abandonment of the case by the court or other authority or a reduced fine in view of the long delay or just to "buy time" or other circumstances.
Accordingly, in one embodiment, the method involves the short term scheduling of newly requested cases, such that an appellant or individual associated with a new case will no longer perceive an incentive in requesting a trial when a guilty conviction or an additional fine is to be expected. In other words, by immediately scheduling a trial within a short time of a few weeks after a trial request is submitted by an appellant, a guilty appellant will be incentivized to pay a fine associated with the case instead of proceeding with the trial request.
On the other hand, the method is of significant benefit to individuals persons who have a genuine case by providing for an early resolution of the case while the incident is freshly in these persons minds and by not having such persons suffering the uncertainty of their case for an extended period which at present could be over one year.
The method is particularly relevant for addressing a backlog associated with motor vehicle cases, transportation cases, and parking cases, which are known to be an area of subject to abuse by the public in the court system in many metropolitan areas.
As will be described below, the method may also be broadly applied to a wide range of other cases and is not limited to those associated with a formal court trial.
An example implementation of the method may be illustrated with reference to a method of scheduling court cases associated with traffic tickets. However, prior to describing the example implementation, it is instructive to first consider how cases associated with traffic violations are currently managed. Presently, in one large metropolitan center, traffic violations, such as parking infractions, are managed as follows.
After a traffic violation (such as a parking infraction) has been documented and a ticket has been produced, the ticket information is uploaded to a central server (for example, to a court docketing database associated with the central server), either from the field using wireless transmission, or, alternatively, manually entered into the system or by swiping a bar code at the central office. Subsequently, the associated fine may be paid by the offender, or a trial request may be made. In the absence of either action within a set time interval, a Notice of Impending Conviction is issued, specifying a final date in the near future by which the fine must be paid or a trial must be requested in order to avoid an automatic conviction. For example, the Notice of Impending Conviction may require that the fine payment or trial request occur within 15 days from the Notice.
The offender may appear in person prior to the final date at a municipal office and petition for the cancellation of the ticket, or request a reduction in the amount of the fine. In general, a municipal clerk will not be authorized to cancel the ticket or reduce the fine in such circumstances. The individual then has the choice of either paying the fine or requesting a trial. If a trial is requested, the clerk will issue a "Notice of Intent to Appear" document and advise the individual that she or he will receive a "Notice of Trial"
about 8 to 15 months subsequently. Eventually, and most often after a substantial delay, the individual receives a "Notice of Trial" document providing a trial venue, date and time. This trial date is typically several months from the date of the "Notice of Trial".
A trial request could also be made over the internet or automated telephone voice response similar to the automated payment of fines provided in many jurisdictions.
In such cases the trial dates and venues would be followed by mailed confirmations to ensure the trial requester had all the correct information about the trial process.
As described above, in many metropolitan centers, a significant fraction of the public has become aware of large court case backlogs associated with traffic violations, and that a successful strategy for eluding or delaying fine payment is to request a trial instead of paying the fine. Some individuals have been known to wait until the last possible moment to request a trial, in order to provide the municipality with a minimal legal time window over which to prepare the required paperwork. This can be an effective strategy in cases where the municipality is required to abandon the case if the paperwork associated with the case is not completed by a specified expiry date.
In the present example implementation, the problem of a backlog associated with abuse of the parking ticketing system is addressed by removing or decreasing the incentive for requesting a trial date as a delay tactic. This is achieved by providing priority scheduling for new cases by inserting the new cases into existing court schedules for the backlog of old cases where sufficient slack was left in these old court sessions to provide for the insertion of these new cases and where the ticketing officer was already scheduled into the corresponding court session to attend to a number of backlog cases.
According to the present example implementation, a computer system is employed for the priority scheduling a traffic violation case, such that a trial date may be scheduled within a short time frame, such as a few weeks (generally one to four weeks).
The scheduling system enables the rapid determination of a trial date, such that the trial date may be communicated to the offender immediately or shortly after the offender has made the request for trial. By communicating the shortly impending trial date immediately or shortly after the trial date request has been made, and scheduling the trial date within the very near future, the offender may perceive that the likelihood of avoiding or delaying fine payment is minimal.
As noted above, in Toronto, 60% of trial requests are abandoned before getting to trial. This indicates that the majority of trial requesters intend to simply "buy time" of approximately one year before making a decision whether or not to proceed to trial, or to delay the payment of a fine. In either case the large number of such trial requests, whatever the motivation, are costly to the municipality.
The immediacy of the trial date scheduling also provides the municipality with the requisite time to prepare the relevant documentation and thus avoid the inadvertent abandonment of a case due to excessive delay of the case.
Accordingly, the present system generally removes the incentive that could otherwise lead to case backlog. The offender, when presented with the near term trial date, and given the opportunity to pay the fine immediately or shortly, may elect to pay the fine and avoid a trial or in any case let the matter rest until an automated conviction is instituted.
As described above, under an existing system associated with abuse and case backlog, an offender who is aware that he has a weak case may elect a trial, in order to delay or avoid fine payment or just to "buy time". In the present example implementation, however, such an offender, when presenting to the municipal authority to request a trial date, would be immediately made aware of an impending trial date in the near future. The offender may then be provided with the opportunity to immediately pay the fine during the same visit to the municipal authority or shortly thereafter. Aware of the risks in going forward with the impending trial, the offender may elect to immediately pay the fine. Such a scenario, when repeated for multiple offenders, and when communicated through the public, may lead to a significant reduction in requests for new trials. As the requests for new trials are significantly reduced more court capacity will be freed up for the backlog of old trial requests. This backlog can then be correspondingly worked off and eliminated. Court resources can then be reduced to meet the lower rate of new court requests.
In order to support the priority scheduling of new cases, the system accesses databases or other file systems associated with the docketing of court cases and the scheduling of police officers (and optionally other relevant individuals, such as translators and witnesses). In one embodiment, the date and session for scheduling the new case is selected to be a nearby date and session on which the police officer associated with the case is already scheduled to appear in court. These steps ensure that the resources required for the trial are available for scheduling.
Having received a new trial request, a court docketing database or file repository is accessed in order to locate the earliest available trial session attended by the officer who issued the new ticket. The disclosed system will make only those sessions available that still have sufficient available room for the scheduling or insertion of a trial, i.e. slack available for accommodating additional cases.
The following section of the present disclosure provides additional details pertaining to the example implementation involving the application of the improved methods to the scheduling and management of trial cases associated with parking tickets. It is to be understood, however, that the methods disclosed herein may be applied to a wide variety of courts for which a backlog of unscheduled cases exists, and the scope of the disclosure is not limited to parking or traffic violation courts.
In the present example, the method is applied to a municipal court system involving court cases associated with parking tickets. For example, in a municipal court system, there may be 5 courts, with each of these courts holding two sessions (mornings and afternoons, typically 3 hours in length each) for a total of 10 sessions per week. Each session has a capacity for a maximum number of cases, for example, cases. This capacity includes a large number of abandoned cases which are dealt with summarily and a large number of very short cases.
Generally, a court system to which the present method may be applied involves the following components: a court docket or docket file of court requests already assigned to specific court sessions, a backlog file of yet unscheduled or unassigned cases; a 16 disposal file of completed court cases, an official scheduling file which lists all officials which have issued tickets in the past and/or will issue tickets in the near future; and other files required for the operation and administration of the system. These files may be combined into a single court docketing database.
Prior to the implementation of the disclosed system, a given number of cases will already have been scheduled. For example, there may be several months (e.g.
four months) of already scheduled hearings associated with docketed cases. The already scheduled cases may total a large number, such as approximately 50,000 cases, for which the corresponding ticketed persons will have already been notified.

In the case of a court system suffering from a backlog of unscheduled cases, there will also be a number of unscheduled backlog cases. In some court systems, the number of backlog cases may significantly exceed the number of already scheduled cases. For example, for the example provided above in which 50,000 cases were already scheduled, there may be another 150,000 cases in the backlog file which have not yet been assigned to a specific court session.
The preparation for the implementation of the present system will therefore involve an initial time period during which the existing scheduled cases are heard.
Accordingly, there will be an initialization date for the system, which is the time at which the decision is made to implement the system, and a subsequent operational date for the system, which is the date upon which the first new case is scheduled according to the present method. For example, an implementation interval of several months may occur between the initial implementation date, and the subsequent operational date.
This implementation interval may be several months, such as about 6 months.
During the implementation interval, the already scheduled cases (50,000 cases in the present example) residing in the docket file at the beginning of the project will have been disposed of.
Assuming therefore that the new system is planned to be operational after the expiry of the implementation interval (e.g. 6 months) from the initialization date, the scheduling of unscheduled backlog of trial requests may begin after a scheduling delay has elapsed. For example, the scheduling delay may be about 2 months from the initialization date i.e. about 4 months or less before the expected operational date in the present example.

From that time onwards, i.e. after the expiry of the scheduling delay, the backlog of unscheduled trial requests will be scheduled such that sufficient slack is left for the subsequent insertion of new cases.
The scheduling of the backlog cases are processed and scheduled by identifying the officers who issued the tickets associated with the cases.
The trial requests for each officer are then sorted by age or pendency of the trial requests.
There are several options for sorting the trial requests for each officer. A
first option involves identifying priority cases that risk being abandoned by the court. If the oldest trial requests in the backlog file are sufficiently old that they could be refused by the courts due to their age, they will first be sorted by age of request starting with the oldest requests. For example, in the Toronto system, courts refuse to hear cases which are more than 18 months old. If the backlog file contains a large proportion of cases which are close to this 18 months old, then giving priority to old court requests will be imperative.
According to a second option, if the age or pendency interval of trial requests is such that the trial requests do not risk of being refused by the courts, then initially the most recent trial requests in the backlog file may be scheduled first to reinforce the perception of trial requests being scheduled for trials within a short period.
This would be particularly effective if trials were scheduled as close to the trial dates as possible.
For example, the Toronto parking court system currently schedules trial requests about four months prior to the trial dates, and mails a "Notice of Trial"
approximately four months before trial dates. If this period were reduced to two months and the backlog cases were scheduled with the most recent trial requests first, then new trial requests could be scheduled within, for example, four weeks from request and the first old trial requests would be scheduled upward from two months of the trial request. This would substantially increase the perception of trial requesters of a sea change in the delays from trial requests to trials. Naturally the older trial requests will need to be eventually scheduled for trial but this approach will reinforce the objectives of the disclosed system.
In practice, there may be a compromise involving a hybrid method which ensures that no trial requests risk being refused by the courts due to their age, while at the same time maximizing the number of recent trial request in the dockets. For example, in such a hybrid method, priority could be given to ensuring that no trial requests risk being refused.
Subject to the above, in addition to the sort according to age or pendency of cases, the trial requests associated with each officer may also be sorted according to some other priority or criterion, for example, in order of the size of the fine, optionally further in order of the likelihood of the defendant being found guilty. Other priorities or criterion may also be employed for sorting the cases.
After having sorted the trial requests associated with each officer, the trial requests for each officer may then be divided into a number of groups of trial requests, where each of these groups is to be assigned to a specific court session.
Moreover, each of these groups of trial requests for one officer and one trial session may be allocated such that each session contains at least a minimum number of trials, thereby ensuring efficient use of the officer's time. Each group of trials for each officer may then be assigned to separate court sessions, separated by a given interval such as one or more weeks.
The total number of trials assigned to each court session (which may include trials for one or more officers) will leave some slack for the insertion of new trial requests. For example, if a specific court session has a capacity to handle 300 trials, and this session is assigned only 200 old trials, there will be slack provided for the insertion of another 100 new trials.
At the start of the operation of the system, the planned slack required for the insertion of new cases may be based on estimates or preliminary tests and may intentionally be larger than actually required to ensure that all new cases can be inserted into existing sessions for old cases at the earliest session already attended by the officer who issued the new ticket.
The sessions for each officer may be cyclically scheduled for subsequent weeks.
For example, in a jurisdiction with 300 active officers, the sessions for officers 1-100 may be assigned in a three week cycle to weeks 1, 4, 7.., with officers 101-scheduled for weeks 2, 5, 8... and officers 201 to 300 scheduled for weeks 3, 6,9...
Such a scheme ensures that each new request for a trial can be scheduled for a trial date within 1, 2 or 3 weeks from trial request, depending when in the cycle of the corresponding officer the trial is requested. However, if the slack in the week cycle of court sessions is too small, such that these sessions are fully filled by an initial number of new requests, further new requests may have to be assigned to the next or further out cycles.
The length of the cycle, i.e. the number of days or weeks in the cycle, is a compromise between the desirability of offering trial dates for new requests as soon as possible versus efficient use of officers' times. For example, if the courts can handle 3000 cases a week, involving 300 ticket issuing officers, a one week cycle will provide for only 10 trials on the average for each active officer each week, and each new requester will get a trial date within one week from trial request.
However, in a four week cycle, each officer will attend to 40 trials on average each fourth week, but a new trial requester will get a trial date within 1, 2, 3 or 4 weeks depending where in the cycle the corresponding officer's trial session is scheduled.
A jurisdiction may wish to provide for a minimum number of days between trial requests and trial dates, say 7 calendar days (alternatively business days), for example, for the convenience of trial requesters and the corresponding officers. For this purpose, the system may include a minimum scheduling delay criterion which can be set to the desirable minimum number of days between trial requests and trial dates. Any existing trial session scheduled within fewer days from trial requests than this criterion will not be available for the insertion of new trial requests.
For example if the parameter is set to 7 calendar days to provide for a minimum of 7 days between the trial request and the trial date, any session within 1, 2,...7 days from trial request will be prevented from accepting insertion of new trials, even if this session still has slack for insertion of the new case. The effect of this criterion is to move the nearest trial date from the day after the trial request to the day after the parameter.
For example, in a system with a 3 week cycle and the scheduling delay criterion set to 0, a trial date could be set within 1 to 21 days from trial request depending on when in the 3 week cycle the corresponding officer is scheduled into a trial session.
However if the criterion is set to 7, then a trial date will be set within 8 to 28 days from trial request again depending when in the 3 week cycle the corresponding officer is scheduled into a trial session.
Sessions which have been filled to their capacity will also be made unavailable to the insertion of additional new cases. However such sessions will be reopened to the insertion of new cases following cancellation of any cases previously assigned to such session until that session is again filled to capacity.
In some embodiments, there may be provisions for the scheduling and processing of cases involving exceptional circumstances which present unusual problems, such as the need for translators, other assistance, or other issues.
For such cases, the system may provide (via a Window Clerk operating the system through a user interface, or alternatively directly through automated Internet user interface or telephone system) a record of the trial request to the requester indicating that the special requirements will be shortly addressed by a special clerk who will inform the requester of an early trial date or disposition of the ticket. These special requests may then be expedited by the special clerk to provide an early trial date for the special requester or cancel the ticket in certain special cases.
Referring now to Figure 1, a flow chart is provided that illustrates a method of scheduling the previously unscheduled backlog cases, where sufficient slack is included for the subsequent scheduling of new hearings. In step 105, the operational date of the system is determined based on the schedule of existing hearings. As described above, the court system may already be burdened with an existing docket of scheduled hearings. If sufficient slack does not already exist in the schedule of these hearings, and if these hearings are not amenable to be rescheduled to allow the insertion of newly requested hearings, then there will be an initial time delay (the aforementioned implementation interval) prior to the date (operational date) at which unscheduled cases may be scheduled with slack.
In step 110, the rate of new hearings during the operational phase of the system is estimated. As noted above, this estimate can be based on historical trial request data.
The officials associated with the unscheduled backlog of cases are identified in step 115. This step may be performed by a computing system accessing the court docketing database and searching the database to identify an official associated with each backlog case. As noted above, the officials are those individuals whose presence is required for or relevant to the hearing. This step can be performed by a computer system that is programmed to access a court docketing database, and search all of the unscheduled backlog cases to obtain a list of all unscheduled backlog cases on a per-official basis.
In step 120, the list of unscheduled backlog cases is optionally sorted to prioritize the list of unscheduled cases associated with each official. As noted above, the prioritization or ordering of the unscheduled cases associated with each official can be performed according to a variety of methods and/or criterion. Suitable yet non-limiting methods of sorting the unscheduled cases on a per-official basis include giving priority to cases which are soon to be abandoned due to an overly long pendency period, and/or giving priority to backlog cases with a low pendency interval, in order to emphasize the rapid scheduling of cases associated with the present system.
After having optionally sorted the cases associated with each official in step 120, the cases are divided into groups and assigned to court sessions in step 125.
The division of cases into groups (again, on a per-official basis) and assigning of the groups into sessions is performed such that (a) sufficient slack is provided in each session for the insertion of newly requested hearings as per the estimated rate of new hearing requests, and (b) each official appears for hearings on a repeat basis as per a schedule, such as a scheduled interval or frequency of appearance.
As described above, the scheduling of the sessions pertaining to each official may be performed such that each official is scheduled to appear in court at a fixed frequency, such as every three or four weeks. The scheduling is performed such that the official appears on a sufficiently frequent basis to enable the short-term insertion of newly requested hearings.
Finally, in step 130, the hearings associated with the case groups are scheduled, and the court docketing database is updated accordingly. The method may further include providing notification to the officers, such as electronic messaging or email, of the scheduled hearings.
In a related embodiment, the case may be identified, based on case identification information, as a special needs case requiring additional case resources. This type of case can be processed by first providing a notification to a special clerk or supervisor for scheduling the special needs case. The special clerk or supervisor may then determine the availability of the additional resources, and input this information to the system.
Furthermore, an additional notification may be provided to the individual requesting the newly requested hearing, where the notification communicates that a trial appointment will be provided such that special needs will be properly addressed. The method may then proceed with searching the court docketing database for a court session for scheduling the newly requested hearing, as described above, such that court session is the next court session for which the official is scheduled to appear in court, sufficient slack exists to accommodate scheduling of the newly requested hearing, the additional case resources are available. The newly requested case may then be scheduled in the court session, and the court docketing database may be updated accordingly.
Figure 2 provides a flow chart illustrating a method of inserting a newly requested hearing into an existing court session, where the existing court session includes backlog hearings that have been scheduled with the provision of slack, to accommodate new hearing insertion, as per the aforementioned method.
In step 205, information identifying the new case and the official who associated with the new case. Such information can be obtained, for example, by a user directly inputting a case identification number into the system (such as a parking ticket number).
Alternatively, the information may be obtained by providing a reference to the case, and the system electronically accessing a file or court docketing database associated with the case. For example, in the case of a parking infraction, the case reference may be received by the system by a user entering a parking ticket reference number.
The system could then electronically access a file or database associated with parking infractions, and receives the case identification information in response to a query including the parking ticket reference number and the ID of the officer who issued the ticket.
In step 210, having identified the case and the official associated with the case, the court docketing database is searched to identify a suitable court session for scheduling the newly requested hearing. The court docketing database is searching the court docketing database to identify the next session for which (a) the official is scheduled to appear in court (for example, to be a witness for a scheduled backlog case), and (b) sufficient slack exists for the scheduling of the newly requested hearing, Provided that the officials are scheduled to appear for hearings associated with backlog cases on rotation basis, as outlined above, all or most officials would be scheduled to appear at sessions on a near term time interval (such as every few weeks, or for a more specific example, every two to four weeks), such that a hearing associated with a new case can be inserted into an existing court session within the near term time interval.
Step 210 thus identifies a court session for which the official is scheduled to appear, and for which sufficient time permits the insertion of the hearing for the newly requested case. After having identified a suitable session for the scheduling of the newly requested hearing, the newly requested hearing is scheduled in step 220, and the court docketing database is update to reflect the amendment to the schedule.
An additional optional step is shown as step 225, in which, after having communicated the hearing date and time to the individual requesting the hearing, an opportunity is provided to the individual to provide payment for a fine associated with the case, in order to cancel the scheduled case.
Step 230 may also optionally be executed, in which the official is notified (for example, electronically notified, as discussed above) of the newly scheduled hearing. It is generally beneficial to perform step 225 prior to step 230 so that in the event that the individual elects to pay the fine and cancel the hearing, this is done prior to having notified the official, and a cancellation notification is therefore avoided.

In the event that the case is associated with the payment of a fine, notice may be provided to the individual associated with the case that the trial may be cancelled upon payment of the fine on the spot or within a short interval allowing for adjustment of the corresponding court session. As described above, by providing this option at the same time, or substantially the same time, as communicating the trial date, the individual may be motivated to pay the fine immediately and forgo the trial, or just forgo the trial without paying the fine. In the latter case the individual will be automatically convicted and an additional fine may be added to the fine shown on the ticket. Also the individual may be warned that failure to attend the scheduled trial session will result in an additional fine to the fine on the original ticket.
Scheduling of the new case requires updating the court docketing database to reflect the insertion of the additional case into the previous court session and notifying the official concerned of the additional case to be heard at the court session to which that official has already been assigned. An electronic notification may be provided to the official, where the electronic notification provides information associated with the new case. For example, the information provided in the electronic notification may include ticket number, case information, trial date and session and venue information.
As described above, embodiments disclosed herein enable the rapid and priority scheduling of newly requested court hearings. This aspect of the disclosure is illustrated in Figures 3(a) and 3(b) for a case relating to a parking violation in the city of Toronto.
Figure 3(a) provides images of (i) a parking ticket, (ii) a Notice of Impending Conviction,(iii) a Notice of Intention to Appear, and (iv) a Notice of Trial, all of which relate to a common parking violation case. .

The case relates to a $60 Parking Ticket that was issued on 2010.06.04, as can be seen in Figure 3(a). The ticketed person received a "Notice of impending Conviction," advising him to pay the fine or file for a court hearing by 2010.07.13. The person filed for a court hearing on 2010.07.12 and received a "Notice of Intent to Appear". The person was advised by the court clerk that he would receive a "Notice of Trial" some time later and that the actual trial date would be over one year from 2010.07.12. The person received the "Notice of Trial" on 2011.04.04 for a trial date on 2011.08.18, i.e. more than 14 months from the date of the ticket and more than months from the date of the court request.
Indeed, by the time of the trial, which occurs 141/2 months after the date of the issuance of the parking tag, the memory of the tagging incident may be in the nebulous past, perhaps partly or fully forgotten or obscure. The applicant may have reason to object to this long delay for a relatively small matter and the Justice may well be lenient, thus proving the entire case costly for the Parking Tag Operations.
As illustrated in Figure 3(b), under the disclosed new procedure, the situation would be very different and the scheduled date for the trial would be within a matter of weeks from the trial request, in stark contrast to Figure 3(a) where the trial date was over a year after the trial request. As shown in Figure 3(b), the trial date, as determined according to the aforementioned method, is scheduled to take place on 2010.07.26, which is just two weeks from the date of trial request on 2010.07.12. As noted above, the Notice of Trial may further include a prominent message that the applicant may cancel the trial on the spot, or within a very short specified period, by paying the fine.
The prominent message may include internet and telephone numbers, etc. for payment of the fine and cancellation of the trial.
The disclosed system requires that a previously scheduled trial session at the time of a new trial request include the officer who has issued the ticket to the new trial requester and still have room (slack) for accommodating the additional trial request.
This imposes the following requirements on the scheduling of the backlog of trial requests into appropriate court sessions:
The aforementioned methods may be implemented using a wide variety of computing systems and architectures. In one embodiment, the system may reside on a single computing environment, while in other embodiments components of the system may be distributed across a network, such as a local area network or a wide area network.
Referring now to Figure 4, an example implementation of a system for scheduling a trial date for a new trial request is illustrated. The computer 300 can be a computing system or device such as a server, desktop computer, workstation, laptop computer, Personal Digital Assistant, or any other similar device having sufficient memory, processing capabilities, and input and output capabilities to implement the embodiments described herein. The device can be a dedicated device used specifically for implementing the present embodiments or a commercially available device programmed to implement the embodiments.
The computer 300 contains a processor 305, a memory 310, a storage medium 315, an input device 320, and a display 325, which are schematically shown as connected through bus 330. Although only one of each component is illustrated, any number of each component can be included. For example, the computer 300 typically contains a number of different data storage media 315. Further, although bus 330 is depicted as a single connection between all of the components, it will be appreciated that the bus 330 may represent one or more circuits, devices or communication channels which link two or more of the components. For example, in personal computers, bus 330 is often a motherboard.
Processor 305 executes steps of the aforementioned method under the direction of computer program code stored within the computer 300. Using techniques well known in the computer arts, such code is tangibly embodied within a computer program storage device accessible by the processor 305, e.g., within system memory 310 or on a computer readable storage medium 315 such as a hard disk or CDROM.
The methods can be implemented by any computing method known in the art.
For example, any number of computer programming languages, such as Java and C++, can be used. Furthermore, various programming approaches can be employed, such as functional or object oriented programming. The court docking database resides in the storage medium 315 or memory 305 and queried, for example, by a database or database server using conventional methods and communication protocols.
Display 325 and input device 320 allow the user to access the system, provide input for identifying a given case to be scheduled, and view scheduling results. Display 325 and input device 320 may also facilitate rapid payment of a fine associated with a case after having communicated an early trial date. Although the display 325 is typically a monitor and the input device 320 is typically a keyboard and/or mouse, devices tailored to input or present particular data types can also be used. Input device examples include tablets or other touch screen device. Display 325 can present the user with information by visual, auditory, or tactile means, or any combination of these formats.
As noted above, embodiments provided above may be implemented in a distributed or networked computer system. Figure 5 illustrates an embodiment of a system 400 for implementing embodiments outlined above. System 400 illustrates a client-server system whereby a user operates user interface 410 on client device 420 for priority scheduling a court case according to the embodiments disclosed above.
Client device communicates with central computing system 460 via web server 440 over network 430. Central computing system is programmed to perform the aforementioned method steps in response to user input. Central computing system 450 interfaces with court docketing database 470 for scheduling old backlog cases and new trial hearings as described above. In another embodiment, any combination of web server 440, central computing system 450, and court docketing database may reside within a common computing environment 480.
it will be understood that Figure 5 provides only one of many possible distributed system implementations for implementing embodiments disclosed herein, and that a wide range of alternative architectures are envisioned without departing from the scope of the disclosure.
In the above embodiments, the user operating the system has been described with the example user type of a court clerk. In general, the user may be any party associated with the court case. For example, the user may be the individual to whom the court case applies, such as an offender in a parking violation. In such an embodiment, the user may access the system from a remote computing device, as shown in Figure 5 at 410. For example, the user may access the system using a computing device equipped with an internet browser. Alternatively, the user may access the system via an automated telephone system.
As noted above, by enabling the immediate scheduling of a trial date, with optional alternative immediate payment, the likelihood of a case going to trial may be reduced.
By further providing direct user access to the system, with rapid or immediate scheduling of a court date after having received a request for trial, the user may be inclined to pay the fine immediately rather than risking a trial just a few weeks away.
The following section of the disclosure illustrates the interaction of a user with the system shown in Figure 5, within the context of scheduling a trial date for a court case associated with a parking ticket. This example relates to the scheduling of new cases, and it is assumed that the old backlog cases have already been scheduled with sufficient slack for new case insertion.
When a newly ticketed person requests a trial date either by visiting a Parking Ticket Office manned by clerks or directly by accessing the system over the Internet or by automated telephone, the clerk or the computer will request the ticket number or other identification of the alleged offense. This ticket number identifies the number of the officer who issued the new ticket. The clerk or the trial requester will input this information through a user interface, such as a web interface, as discussed above. The information is provided to central computing system 450, which access court docketing database 470 to identify the docket file of previously scheduled trials associated with the officer.
Central computing system 450 searches court docketing database 470 to identify the nearest applicable session to the date of the new request for a trial session for which the officer who issued the new ticket has already been assigned during the scheduling of the old backlog file. After central computing system 450 has located the nearest such session, a Notice of Trial is provided to the user through user interface 410 (for example, printed or electronically generated), including the information of the trial session to which the new case has been assigned, i.e. the location, date and time and other pertinent information concerning the assigned trial session. In the case of an electronic reply, the system may provide a hard copy for mailing the Notice of Trial to the trial requester.
If the policy of the jurisdiction permits, the clerk may assign the next nearest trial date where the trial requester can show convincing evidence of being unable to attend the nearest available trial session. For example if the nearest available trial session in a system with a three week cycle is 10 days from trial request the next nearest available trial session will be 31 days from trial request. However, trial requesters should not be permitted to misuse this facility (if it should be available) to procrastinate. This can be achieved, for example, by setting clear criterion for providing convincing evidence of being unable to attend the session, and limiting the rescheduling of the trial session to the next nearest trial date.
Having identified a trial date, central computing system 450 automatically updates court docketing database 470 to add the new case to the docket to which the new case has been assigned. Central computing system may then advise the relevant officer, preferably electronically, otherwise by telephone or mail, of the additional ticket number and other information which has been added to the group of trials for that officer and that trial session.
Embodiments as described above may be useful in a wide range of court cases, including, but not limited to, traffic, parking, taxation, and more. For example, the above embodiments may be employed for any court case in which trial delays encourage 6 spurious applications and abuse of the court system.
While the above embodiments relate to court cases and trials, it is to be understood that the systems and methods described in the present disclosure may be employed for any suitable hearing or proceeding. For example, the presently disclosed systems and methods may be employed in jurisdictions without a formal court system for a given class of cases, such as a decriminalized process or system involving a hearing.
The specific embodiments described above have been shown by way of example, and it should be understood that these embodiments may be susceptible to various modifications and alternative forms. It should be further understood that the claims are not intended to be limited to the particular forms disclosed, but rather to cover all modifications, equivalents, and alternatives falling within the spirit and scope of this disclosure.

Claims (25)

1. A computer implemented method of scheduling backlog court hearings associated with backlog court hearing requests such that slack is provided for additional scheduling of newly requested court hearings, the method comprising the steps of:
determining an operational date for implementing scheduling of the backlog court hearings;
determining an estimated rate of new hearing requests, wherein the estimated rate of new hearing requests pertains to a time after the operational date;
searching a court docketing database and identifying officials associated with the backlog court hearing requests;
dividing the backlog court hearing requests associated with each official into case groups and scheduling backlog court hearings associated with the case groups within court sessions occuring after the operational date;
wherein the case groups are scheduled such that slack is provided to accommodate future scheduling of additional hearings within each court session, where the amount of slack provided within each court session is determined based on the estimated rate of new hearing requests; and wherein the case groups are scheduled such that each official appears for hearings on a repeat basis as per a scheduled interval.

2. The method according to claim 1 further comprising the step of sorting the backlog court hearing requests associated with each official prior to dividing the backlog court hearing requests associated with each official.

3. The method according to claim 2 wherein when sorting the backlog court hearing requests, priority is given to backlog cases at risk of abandonment.

4. The method according to claim 2 where the backlog court hearing requests are sorted according to duration of pendency of the backlog court hearing requests, wherein priority is given to the backlog court hearing requests with a shortest duration of pendency.

5. The method according to claim 4 wherein when sorting the backlog court hearing requests, additional priority is given to backlog cases at risk of abandonment.

6. The method according to any one of claims 1 to 6 wherein a given case group associated with a given official includes a minimum number of backlog court hearings, such that efficient use is made of the given official's time.

7. The method according to any one of claims 1 to 6 wherein the case groups associated with each official are scheduled cyclically with a selected interval.

8. The method according to claim 7 wherein the selected interval is one or more weeks.

9. The method according to claim 8 wherein the officials are grouped into groups of officials, wherein one group of officials is scheduled to appear in court during a given week.

10. The method according to any one of claims 1 to 9 wherein the estimated rate of new hearing requests is based on a comparison of a previous number of new court hearing requests to a previous number of backlog court hearing requests.

11. The method according to any one of claims 1 to 10 further comprising updating the court docketing database.

12. The method according to any one of claims 1 to 11 further comprising scheduling one or more empty court sessions after the operational date, wherein the one or more empty court sessions are associated with one or more of the officials and are free from backlog cases, such that the one or more empty court sessions are entirely available for scheduling of newly requested court hearings.

13. The method according to any one of claims 1 to 12 further comprising scheduling a newly requested hearing according to the steps of:
receiving case identification information identifying a new case and a specific official associated with the new case;
searching the court docketing database for a selected court session for scheduling the newly requested hearing, wherein the selected court session is the next court session for which the specific official is scheduled to appear in court and sufficient slack exists to accommodate scheduling of the newly requested hearing; and scheduling the newly requested hearing for the selected court session.

14. The method according to claim 13 wherein the selected court session is further determined such that a minimum time interval is provided between a date on which a request was made for the newly requested hearing and a date on which the selected court session is to occur.

15. The method according to claim 13 or 14 wherein the newly requested hearing is associated with a fine, and wherein the method further comprises the step of providing a notification that the newly requested hearing may be cancelled upon payment of the fine immediately or within a short interval.

16. The method according to any one of claims 13 to 15 further comprising the step of updating the court docketing database to include the scheduling of the newly requested hearing.

17. The method according to any one of claims 13 to 16 further comprising the step of promptly notifying the specific official of the scheduling of the newly requested hearing.

18. The method according to claim 17 wherein the step of notifying the specific official includes the step of sending an electronic notification to the specific official, the electronic notification including instructions for attending the selected court session.

19. The method according to claim 18 further comprising including, in the electronic notification, information associated with the new case.

20. The method according to any one of claims 13 to 19 further comprising the step of notifying one or more individuals associated with the new case of the scheduling of the newly requested hearing.

21. The method according to claim 20 wherein the one or more individuals include one or more of a witness and a translator and other resources.

22. The method according to any one of claims 13 to 21 wherein the new case is associated with a parking ticket and wherein the step of receiving case identification information includes receiving parking ticket information associated with the parking ticket, including identification of an officer who issued the parking ticket.

23. The method according to claim 22 wherein the step of receiving the parking ticket information associated with the parking ticket includes the steps of:
receiving a parking ticket number;
sending a query to a parking ticket database, the query including the parking ticket number; and receiving, from the parking ticket database, parking ticket information identifying the officer who issued the parking ticket.

24. The method according to any one of claims 1 to 12 further comprising scheduling a newly requested hearing according to the steps of:
receiving case identification information identifying a new case and a specific official associated with the new case;
identifying, based on the case identification information, the new case as a special needs case requiring additional case resources; and providing a notification to a special clerk or supervisor for scheduling the special needs case;
receiving input from the special clerk or supervisor indicating an availability of the additional case resources;
searching the court docketing database for a selected court session for scheduling the newly requested hearing, wherein the selected court session is the next court session for which the specific official is scheduled to appear in court and sufficient slack exists to accommodate scheduling of the newly requested hearing and for which the additional case resources are available; and scheduling the newly requested hearing for the selected court session.

25. The method according to claim 24 further comprising the step of providing an additional notification to an individual requesting the newly requested hearing that a trial appointment will be provided such that special needs will be properly addressed.