header-logo header-logo

30 May 2013
Issue: 7562 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Privatised court service fears

MoJ denies plans for “wholesale” privatisation of the courts service

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has moved to quash speculation that it plans to privatise the courts service.

Private companies could take over court buildings and staff, saving the Treasury £1bn per year, according to press reports this week. According to The Times, the independence of the courts would be preserved by a Royal Charter, and judges and magistrates would not be affected. Hedge fund investment would be encouraged and extra funds would be generated by hiking fees for wealthy litigants.

Chancellor George Osborne confirmed this week that the MoJ is one of several departments that have agreed to cut a further 10% from their budget.

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said in a statement to Parliament in March that he was looking at ways to provide a “more efficient service”, and wanted “to ensure that those who litigate in our courts pay their fair share”.

An MoJ spokesman says: “We have always said we are determined to deliver a courts system that is more effective and efficient and provides improved services for victims and witnesses.

“The proposals being considered are not the wholesale privatisation of the courts service. We are committed to the firm, fair and independent administration of justice.”

Francesca Kaye, president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, says: “While the proposals seem not to affect the judiciary, they belie a naïve understanding of how our courts work.

“As a result of changes in functions and cuts, many senior court staff take on quasi-judicial functions on a daily basis. Under proposals as seen, these people will be working for private companies, eroding their current independence and putting the integrity of the court system at risk. There is real scope for conflict of interest here.

“The record to date on privatisation of some court functions is woefully poor. The privatisation of the court interpreters service has been a disaster—far from delivering improvements, we have seen ongoing failings and problems.”

A Law Society spokesman says: “Improving the way the courts are run inside the public sector would produce real benefits to the taxpayer and citizen, rather than adding to the profits of private operators.”

Issue: 7562 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll