In 1975 I was awarded a Research Scholarship by the N.S.W. Law Reform Commission for the purpose of investigating civil and criminal procedures in the United States, Canada, England, India, Sri Lanka and Singapore. The Research Scholarship was funded by the Law Foundation of New South Wales. I left Australia in mid-September, 1975 and returned in mid-January, 1976.

The terms of the Research Scholarship required that I prepare a report of my investigations and make specific recommendations for improvements to the systems and procedures of courts in New South Wales. The second requirement presents the main difficulty. It is generally not possible to transpose procedures wholesale from one country to another. What is suitable overseas may not be suitable here. Further, the ingrained conservatism of the legal profession presents a major stumbling block; generally a considerable period of time is needed to persuade judges and lawyers to leave well-trodden paths of existing practice. Moreover, there is the ever-present problem of lack of finance. All of these matters have been kept well in mind.

The most significant matters investigated were: (1) voluntary arbitration of small claims, London and Los Angeles; (2) night courts for small claims, New York (heading II); (3) mandatory arbitration of civil claims to a maximum limit of $10,000, Philadelphia; (4) arbitration of medical malpractice actions, New York; (5) absence of pleadings in courts of limited jurisdiction, Singapore; (6) examination for discovery, Edmonton and Toronto (heading V); (7) pre-trial review in courts of limited jurisdiction, London; (8) pre-trial in civil cases, Halifax (heading III); (9) voluntary and mandatory settlement conferences in civil cases, Los Angeles (heading IV); (10) evidence on commission by agreement, Rajasthan, India; (11) videotape of medical evidence, Columbus (Ohio); (12) videotape of trials, Columbus (Ohio); (13) court-appointed medical experts, New York and Los Angeles; (14) "screening" of appeals in civil cases, New York; (15) research teams for appellate judges, California and Michigan; (16) multi-track voice writing, Boston (heading IX); (17) computer-aided transcription of shorthand notes, Chicago; (18) adjournments in civil and criminal cases, Los Angeles and San Francisco (heading VI); (19) summary traffic trials, San Francisco (heading VII); (20) parajudicial adjudication of traffic charges, San Francisco (heading VII); (21) administrative adjudication of traffic charges, New York; (22) night courts for traffic cases, Los Angeles (heading VIII); (23) statutory time limitations for prosecutions in criminal cases, United States generally; (24) "screening" of criminal prosecutions, New York and Chicago (heading XIII); (25) "screening" of private criminal prosecutions, Philadelphia and Columbus (Ohio) (heading X); (26) employment-centred diversion of criminal charges, San Francisco and Minneapolis; (27) statutory diversion of drug offenders, Boston; (28) discovery by the prosecution, Chicago (heading XIV); (29) discovery by the accused, Chicago (heading XV); (30) pre-trial in criminal cases, London and the United States generally (heading XI); (31) committal proceedings, England and Wales (heading XII); (32) criminal "short cause" programmes, Los Angeles; (33) jury waiver, United States and Canada generally; (34) prosecutorial plea bargaining, Portland and the United States generally; (35) the formalization of plea bargaining, Chicago; and (36) recommendations as to sentence by prosecutors, Anchorage and Los Angeles.

The ideas here discussed constitute only a moderate percentage of the matters investigated overseas. Unfortunately, a number of matters, some worthy of serious consideration, were omitted to keep the report within reasonable bounds. In all I have made recommendations in respect to 14 major subjects.

In analysing each subject I have generally followed the same procedure. First, I have described a procedural reform in a specific jurisdiction. In many cases the jurisdiction chosen was one of many where the idea has been successfully implemented. Second, I have evaluated the significance of the new procedure in that jurisdiction. This has not always been easy because of the paucity of statistical material. Impressions I formed from judges, court administrators and lawyers generally have often been. my guide. Whilst in some situations the comments were conflicting, on many occasions there was so complete a consensus that conclusions are stated without qualification. Third, I have described the relevant procedures operative in New South Wales. Finally, I have assessed the merits or otherwise of introducing the innovation, in whole or in part, into the court systems of New South Wales.

I use the personal pronoun "I" throughout the report as it is apt for recording impressions. And impressions have played a significant role in the formulation of this report. I have read much of the material, such as it is, on the subjects discussed. Unfortunately, written materials, irrespective of their quality, do not tell all. Moreover, many matters are difficult, if not impossible, to grasp in the abstract. There is a world of difference between studying another court system and seeing it in operation under the guidance of its participants, for which there can be no substitute.