Justinian interviews iconic court reporters Julie Johnson and Margaret Kirkpatrick ... Behind-the-scenes intricacies of electronic shorthand ... Capturing forever the highs and lows of court proceedings ... Judges who show consideration ... A vital cog in the justice system
It's like playing chords
Justinian: Julie, how did you get into court reporting?
Julie: I actually did a postgraduate course in court reporting, but it's no longer a postgraduate course. That was in the beginning of the new system of computer-assisted transcription. I hadn't have much of a job after I was at uni so court reporting just sounded really good.
Justinian: What did you study at uni?
Julie: I did an Arts degree, majoring in history, which actually I'm going back to, which is really weird. But this has been a good job.
Justinian: What about you Margaret? How did you get into court reporting?
Margaret: I started off in Petty Sessions, but before that I was working in London for six or seven years and I'd heard about court reporting and always wanted to get into it. But I'd never done anything over there so I decided on it when I came over here, did the test and stayed in Petty Sessions for six or eight months and then did the court reporter's exam for the higher courts and got that.
Justinian: Who manages these exams?
Margaret: I think it was the Attorney General's Department.
Justinian: Tell me how does it work now with the little machines you have. Do you tap away, do they connect to a database somewhere?
Julie: Well they're very clever. We have a little computer and now it has a tiny SD disk in it. So we take it down in shorthand and our computer and it comes up in a little reader transcribed against our dictionary that's in the machine. So there's a capability to do real time, and some courts here have real time, so that everybody can see it in English on their computer screen.
Justinian: Are most trials done like that now?
Julie: No not most trials - only a few trials, where there's a deaf witness so that they can see it. It's just a little bit more complicated and not everybody is able to do the real time.
Justinian: So what happens when it's not in real time? It's captured somewhere - the shorthand is captured on a computerised database?
Margaret: Just on a disk and we put a disk into our personal computer and just edit it, so that each case would obviously have a new job dictionary because you're dealing with different names.
Justinian: So you come and go throughout a case. A new shift comes and goes.
Julie: At the moment Margaret and I are sharing a court - we're working with Justice Lindsay and there's just the two of us all day. So we got in for half-an-hour, three-quarters of an hour and when we come out we work on the work we have taken in that time.
Justinian: So you then work on your computer?
Julie: So at the end of the day we'll have the edited day's transcript all done.
Justinian: And what happens then?
Julie: Well we're totally paperless now and we just email everybody; we've got the email address of the parties who've been in court and we've got the judge's details.
Justinian: But is it stored on a database somewhere?
Margaret: Yes it is and there's a major database that Jana, our technical person, manages. So it's all eventually stored onto a database and she can get access to that.
Julie: It's then updated everyday.
Justinian: It must be vast then.
Margaret: Yes, it is.
Julie: So you just have to have a naming convention that works.
Justinian: So tell me - what would you consider to be a difficult trial and how you cope? What are the issues that make a trial difficult to get down?
Julie: Well, I think the main issue is, if we haven't got access to names. Some of the more difficult ones down in the Downing Centre are importation cases where everybody is of some other nationality. You get Dutch names coming up or a lot of Chinese or Asian names. But the main problems is people keep saying them differently. Like there's Nguyens and then a Huynh which sounds a little bit similar - it depends how people are saying them.
Justinian: So it's a matter of getting the name down accurately. What do you do if you can't? Can you interrupt and ask how do you spell that?
Margaret: We can.
Julie: We should do that. We are supposed to have control of the transcripts, otherwise it's fairly useless if it's not accurate.
Justinian: Who allocates you to go to which court?
Margaret: There's a person called the assignment officer who tells us. In the morning we are told which court we will be in.
Justinian: You can go to the District Court ot is it mainly the Supreme Court?
Margaret: Mainly Supreme and sometimes Industrial as well. But it's just depends on where you work, like ...
Justinian: Land and Environment, do you do that as well?
Julie: I have done some. Some but not many, because there's fewer of us now so we just cover the higher courts really.
Justinian: I just want to understand those little machines - those little tabs, those keys.
Julie: The're the same as in a Perry Mason movie so I think it's about 1900 when they were originally introduced. The actual structure of it hasn't changed, but then it got electrified and we then put a disk in and now we put a tiny tiny little disk in it.
Justinian: And that tiny disk then goes into your computer does it?
Margaret: Yes. We have a backup one that stays - a card reader.
Justinian: But the keys identify shorthand characters?
Julie: Yes, they're just beginning consonants, end consonants and then you have four vowels, but there's 12 different vowel combinations, so you can get the long sounds - long "e", long "i".
Justinian: So did you originally have to do shorthand as a long hand thing.
Margaret: I did, but you don't have to. The machine is totally different. It's another form of shorthand. Really all it is - all those keys are different letters and it's combinations of those letters which make up the ... it's sort of like playing the piano, like chords.
Justinian: It looks fascinating.
Margaret: So you have to learn that system.
Justinian: And then how long are you in court, like half an hour is it?
Margaret: It can be half an hour depending on what's going on. If it's what we call a daily transcript - where there's going to be a transcript produced at the end of the day - you'll usually only be in for maybe say an hour, 10-11, then 11-12, but that would include a morning tea adjournment and then 12 o'clock till one. And then the afternoon will be divided up.
Justinian: How long then would it take you to edit an hours worth of work.
Margaret: It depends on how fast it's going, what's going on. It can be very fast or it can be just moderate - it depends on who's speaking.
Justinian: And if you are doubtful about stuff when you see it, can you ask the judge's associate to clarify?
Margaret: Yes we can ask for names or chronologies, which are always very important to us.
Julie: And we keep running sheets particularly if we are allowed to follow the trial through, we know the people and it's so much better a transcript. And it makes our job easier.
Justinian: How many of the court reporters are there?
Margaret: I think there are around about a hundred. I wouldn't say any more than that.
Justinian: Over all the court system?
Julie: Yep.
Justinian: Do they do the Local Court?
Margaret: No, this is just for Supreme Court - all from the Attorney General's Department, Court Reporting Services Branch.
Julie: There are private firms that do some. There's one in the Federal Court that's called AusScript or something like that.
Justinian: So with the hundred do you cover just the Supreme Court, the Industrial Commission and Land & Environment?
Julie: I used to work in the Industrial Commission quite a bit but now it's less and less. It doesn't do that much now really.
Justinian: But who covers the District Court?
Margaret: The District Court is really the Downing Centre so there are a body of reporters who are based down there.
Justinian: Part of your department?
Julie: Yes.
Some court reporters still use Pitmans
Justinian: What about the impact of new technology …
Julie: I never learned Pitmans. I learned the very first computer-compatible program. But even so I've been through about four or five different types of software that we've had to get used to and training sessions and updating - even the one we are on now which is pretty good.
Justinian: Are people using voice recognition or is that too hard?
Julie: The department has tried voice recognition and the people who were didn't actually re-train, they use Dragon Dictate. But I think there's a few more problems with that than they maybe thought.
Justinian: But you really have to get the voices familiar with the system - if you've got different witnesses coming in with different voices all the time.
Julie: So what they do is someone still takes it down in shorthand and then they put it onto Dragon by their voice, which works because it's the one voice.
Justinian: So what are the, do you think that will become more and more common?
Julie: No.
Margaret: I think that really cuts out the need for a typist, because we used to have in the branch a body of typists. I think we had definitely more than a dozen - that's years ago – but now they have two.
Justinian: What do they do?
Margaret: Well that's where one of the court reporters, the pen writers, will dictate to a typist and then ...
Justinian: So there are still some people using pen and a notebook?
Margaret: Exactly.
Justinian: Really?
Margaret: Yes, in the branch.
Justinian: But why? Because they haven't learnt the machines?
Margaret: Because they didn't want to learn the machines or because they just thought we'll see it out with shorthand or with penned shorthand.
Justinian: But your machines, the disk automatically turns it into text.
Margaret: It takes away the need for another person.
Julie: There's a dictionary in the machine ... We refine our dictionary as we work and if that's in your machine then your writing will come out pretty much according to that.
Justinian: Is the dictionary like a cross-checking system - it confirms words or spells correctly or ...
Julie: Every single word has at some time been put in (or possibilities) have been put into this dictionary and if somebody new starts they can start off with a little minor dictionary and then they build it up as they do different work.
Justinian: Does the dictionary cross reference with the content of what you've been transcribing?
Julie: Yes, it recognises that we have the right words.
Justinian: Where you have a whole lot of complex jargon would you have to put those words into your dictionary?
Margaret: Yes it makes it easier. It's called a job dictionary.
Justinian: So then when you're sitting there getting it down the dictionary just checks those words automatically?
Julie: It is a dictionary from A to Z of all the words that we have keyed in and so that's on our hard drive ... it will have in red all the bits that it can't read. So there might be like 10 words on a page, on every page, that it can't read.
Justinian: And the dictionary will find them and correct them.
Margaret: Yes ... In the old days with two reporters and two typists working as a team, say on circuit, you could get a transcript out very quickly. And that was doing pen.
Justinian: What are the pressures facing court reporters do you think?
Margaret: It's a really good job because it's so interesting, but there are pressures in court, like fast speakers or not getting documents when everybody else knows what they're talking about, say on a hard trial could be computer language and so on.
Justinian: What's been your most interesting case that you can remember?
Margaret: I did do a little bit of the Milat trial. I didn't do an awful lot, but I did some. But I can remember distinctly - I was talking to Julie before we came down - a witness called Johnnie Onions who they'd brought over from England who was very hard, very difficult accent but all you could do was stop and you had to get what he said. It was very very important. So you just had to stop if you didn't understand.
Justinian: Who was the judge?
Margaret: It was Justice Hunt. He was very good with us.
Kamahl: in court
Justinian: And what about yours Julie, what was your most interesting case?
Julie: I think I've been really impressed with one in Queensland. I had Kamahl come into my court and he had a civil case up there and I thought, you know, that's pretty good. Kamal!
Justinian: Did he sing?
Julie: He talked - he had the most melodious voice. I was so transfixed, it took me like a whole question before I could actually start writing again. A beautiful, beautiful voice. It was really hard to take down. But I saw Mal Meninga up there in Queensland too.
Justinian: Was he in court?
Julie: He was a footballer, but he was also a policeman, so he came in a few times too with his cases.
Justinian: Do you miss Queensland?
Julie: Well in Queensland the weather was wonderful and it was a bit of a holiday, I must admit, and we had circuits all around the State.
Justinian: Do you get to know the barristers quite well and do you identify barristers that might be more cooperative and helpful than others?
Julie: Definitely. And different circuits too. We've been away on two-week cases ...
Justinian: So do you all go out for a drink together?
Julie: Sometimes. More towards the end of a case, but you do get to know them really well and they get to know us too, I guess.
Justinian: Any favourites?
Julie: Oh there are so many. We've got more favourite judges probably.
Margaret: We have and Moree was one of the great circuits because there were spa baths.
Julie: We meet this really great judge who decided he was going to go out there to get aboriginals out of jail. What he was doing was really so good.
Justinian: You thought you were on some sort of a mission?
Julie/Margaret: Yes.
Justinian: Who are your favourite judges or your least favourite?
Margaret: We like Justice Lindsay - he's only new - he was only appointed last August, so he's very ...
Justinian: He's very thoughtful?
Margaret: He is and he's very moderate in his speech, he doesn't rush and you can hear him. You can hear every word even though we are in a court that's hard to hear in, which is Hospital Road.
Justinian: Do the new courts make any difference, the refurbished courts I mean?
Margaret: Yes they have but they're not perfect. They're definitely not perfect.
Justinian: Acoustically?
Margaret: Yes, because the way they're built - like the A and the B courts - they're almost just in a position together. Sometimes when you have a very loud voice in A Court you can hear it in B. Justice Johnson, he's got a very loud voice and we thought there was a ruckus. The court officers came running because they thought they could hear shouting and yelling but it was just his voice - it was just so loud. But that was the only reason. I think it's the way they've built it.
Justinian: Are there any other issues I should have asked you about?
Julie: I don't know, I think if you are looking at it as a career thing you get so much esoteric information over such a long time.
Justinian: Some cases are more interesting than others, I mean a good criminal case is much more interesting than say a dry old civil case.
Julie: You can have, like in Sydney, more so than Brisbane, you can get a run of back-to-back trials. You get paedophiles for weeks and weeks, and I found that was really, really trying.
Justinian: Yes that's hard.
Julie: And I think judges find that really difficult too and you don't get a proper view of the world and then all of a sudden you get out of the jurisdiction.
Justinian: Do you have be on deck by 9 o'clock in the morning or whenever the court starts?
Julie: We usually start at 9.30 for a 10 o'clock start so arrangements have to be made.
Justinian: Do the machines ever break down in the middle of a case?
Julie: Sometimes, they run out of batteries. The machines are pretty good and they will ping ... But it's not as bad as some of the original machines - they had all this paper that would come out and so that we'd have a paper record as well as a disk record. It used to often start to curl the wrong way ... like in the film Babe.
Justinian: It's all paperless now?
Julie: Yes it is. If people want to print out a transcript we just send it to them by email and they print it out.
Justinian: Do you do ICAC and Royal Commissions, is that part of your work?
Julie: No that's Jim, which is private.
Margaret: No that's usually done by people ...
Julie: Police Integrity Commission they employ people to do it.
Margaret: I thought it was private as well.
Justinian: Because at ICAC you can get the transcript that evening. It's up there on their website.
Margaret: Yes that's Jim, I'm sure.
Justinian: Jim is the ...?
Margaret: It's a friend of ours who used to work in the branch but he's ...
Justinian: ... now doing his own thing ...
Margaret: ... and has been for a long time.
Justinian: Then with Hansard in Parliament, do they have a similar system?
Julie: It's the same system in court and in parliamentary reporting. So a lot of people went to Hansard.
Justinian: Who runs that diploma?
Julie: That was one in Canberra, but they only ran it for about three or four years, I think. It's really good for court reporters. A few people came from that school. Now I think there have been some night schools that do it. But it's not in great demand.
Justinian: It's a very specialised occupation. There are not too many people that get into it. But it's a really valuable core of the whole system. The whole system wouldn't properly function if there wasn't court reporting.
Julie: Yes that's true. It's important and it's not important because our transcript is sort of, you know, I think a good barrister will read the transcript, like in a criminal case so that it effects his questions for the next day. But, beyond that it's not really useful and they use it for their summation of the case. But it only just gets filed away.
Margaret: But then Court of Appeal - it's important for them.
Justinian: They rely on it.
Julie: But when I was working at the Justice Museum as a volunteer for a bit, and I had, one of my jobs ...
Justinian: The one in Phillip Street?
Julie: Yes, one of my jobs was to help research some cases. They had all these old photographs - well they knew how to get some from the archives but I managed to find lots of other ones, just because I knew the identifiers to go and find stuff from the registry. But, they bought up the files and they were as transcripts. It's just the same way as we do now. And they were filed in these files for over 50 years.
Justinian: Transcripts are important, particularly if an issue arises about some barrister who misbehaves or the judge over reacting to something.
Julie: Judge Dodd was sleeping in all the trials and they had to recall all those old trials to see how the courts were run.
Justinian: Roddy Meagher said it didn't matter if he slept through appeals because he's got the transcript, he can just read it.
Margaret: Yes, so they are important. He was a great judge but you could just see him go off, but he was right on top of it nevertheless. But it was just that it [sleeping on the bench] wasn't seen to be proper. It was a problem really.
Justinian: I had better not hold you up, but it was great.
Margaret: It was very nice of you.
Julie: Thank you for asking us.