header-logo header-logo

25 July 2018
Issue: 7803 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-detail

Lawyers highlight risks of courts project

Transformation programme may ‘fail to deliver expected benefits’, committee warns

Family lawyers and barristers have hit out at the government following a scathing report on the £1.2bn courts modernisation project.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) last week warned of a ‘significant risk that HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) will fail to deliver the benefits it expects’, in its report, Transforming Courts and Tribunals. It said the government’s timetable was unrealistic, consultation inadequate and that the changes—closing courts, introducing virtual hearings, digitising paper services and centralising services—could have unforeseen consequences for taxpayers, court users and justice.

Welcoming the report, Jo Edwards, who gave evidence to PAC’s inquiry on behalf of family lawyers’ group Resolution, said Resolution members regularly reported delays in their local courts, and that one in two said in a Resolution survey that the court they’ve used historically was earmarked for closure.

‘Officials need to ensure the programme delivers real improvements to the courts system, without further restricting access to justice, and isn’t simply a cost-cutting exercise,’ she said.

Andrew Walker QC, chair of the Bar, which also raised its concerns to the inquiry, said: ‘Engagement with the Bar has been fraught with practical difficulties of HMCTS’s making, and too often barristers and the Bar Council have wasted the valuable time that they are being asked to give to this (entirely at their own expense).

‘We are also not satisfied that sufficient attention is being paid to the implications that digitising legal processes, and the widespread use of video technology, may have for justice and fairness in every case. This must include ensuring that independent legal advice is received when it is needed most, especially before individuals make decisions that may have important implications, such as before indicating a likely plea when you are charged with a criminal offence.

‘HMCTS has been reluctant to address this issue, as the availability of legal advice is not part of its design brief.’

However, HMCTS CEO Susan Acland-Hood said: ‘We do recognise the need to engage more actively with our key stakeholders, and this is a key priority over the next phase of reform. This is a challenging programme but we remain confident that it is on track.’

Issue: 7803 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-details
RELATED ARTICLES

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