It is perfectly clear from today's budget that the already pared-down criminal justice system is in for further financial trimming. The sheer numbers are too much for me to comprehend, but I have some understanding of how public sector cuts are applied. My working life was spent running small-to-medium businesses, and it was a real eye-opener to me when I became involved as a bench officer in the minutiae of running a court or a group of courts. By far the greatest part of justice system costs is for people, but when the axe has to fall the Civil Service's rules make for a clumsy and protracted process. Thus, the group of courts within which I work has still not finalised its staffing, fifteen months after the merger.
There is still some residual resistance to change among magistrates, although the message that there is no way back is beginning to sink in, even to the diehards who would like to turn the clock back. The bush telegraph tells me that further closures of courtrooms and courthouses are a certainty, and that the workload will be allowed and encouraged to trickle downwards, allowing for further economies.
Nothing is sacred, nothing is truly ring fenced. At this rate I fear for the future supply of biscuits; if they go, we are all in trouble.
Has the closure of many local magistrate's courts had a noticeable effect on non-appearance. I wonder if the additional effort and cost in getting to court has put off even more those who were unhappy at having to appear there in the first place?
ReplyDeleteI think you will need to remove yourself from the bench should the phantom biscuit thief ever find themselves in your dock!
ReplyDeletePublic should be concerned about the closure of 2 London Family Courts and the merger into one coupled with the reduction on the numbers of Judges. The courts are already overstretched how is such a move compatible with this Government's commitment to the Family and such events as the 'Baby P' case.
ReplyDeleteI dare say many had expected, as I had, lots of non appearances on the basis of "Oh that was the court I was expected to go to!", but in my court cluster I have only rarely heard this. Far more of an issue than people not turning up is the CPS not having any papers, or items that were already directed by the court to the CPS to be served by a deadline, not having been served. Just wait until wasted costs orders start to hit. That should make a few people take notice.
ReplyDeleteWe have made several wasted costs orders against the CPS for blatant failure to comply with their legal obligations on disclosure. So far it seems to have had little effect although our Deputy JC is having a meeting with Alison Saunders, head of CPS London so that's progress...err...
DeleteI think that Anon is quite right. We have had surprisingly few people turn up to the wrong court (there was one CPS staffer of course) but the CPS is truly shambolic at the moment, and their morale is at rock bottom.
DeleteIf there's an unseemly rush to the exit when they take your biscuits away, does that constitute 'dunk and disorderly'?
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that we just don't have the money for the justice system (nor any other publicly funded orgainisation) we would like. It was all frittered away by the bankers and other fats cat in to their fast cars or swiss bank accounts just like the corrupt countries in west africa.
ReplyDeleteNot in the UK. It was Blair, Brown, et al that almost bankrupted the Government.
DeleteIt's not an "either/or" situation; first, Blair, Brown et al, then bankers and fat cats, but even they came trailing after those who own the trough. Arrogant posh boys did someone call them?
DeleteAlthough you and your readers constantly complain about the CPS, in my experience lay magistrates often just don't understand the rules on disclosure, frequently order disclosures that are neither required by procedure or relevance and they are often not aided by pro-active, informed, legal advisers.Valid objections to unnecessary orders are often raised by CPS representatives in court but ignored by the bench.
ReplyDeleteRelevance to whom, judged by whom ?
DeleteTry the CPIA: the law is often a good place to start. I agree that too many orders are made without any adherence to it. This wastes time and money without furthering justice.
DeleteIt is true, the CPS is in a dreadful state right now and the mistakes are only starting to filter though. But which other part of the CJS could lose a third of its staff (if the stories of London are true) and not collapse? That it continues at all is a credit to many (though sadly not all) of the staff. It is difficult to see it improving in the near future.
For a well-informed and pleasingly fair commentary on the CPS and its travails, see the A-G's recent speech.
Anon as I: Golly, I don't know where you are but that is simply not the case in our area, far from it. We handle the case management forms and sign them off...and well, use the CP rules...anyway, all you need to know is on the back of the form.
ReplyDeleteOh hardly, most of the time the defence are asking for initial disclosure not anything terribly difficult
ReplyDeleteIf non-disclosure were an offence the CPS would be old lags. Time and again it is made on the day of trial. And I have heard repeated letters from solicitors calling for it described as "attempts to jump the queue". As for secondary disclosure - if it is due under the rules it is due, and it is not for the CPS to say that it should not be.
ReplyDeleteThe reality is that there is still a fortune that could be saved if the court system were brought into the 21st Century. Given that custody- is and should be the last resort for a much bigger proportion of business than it hitherto has been means there is no need for so much capacity at the Crown Court. If just a fraction of the money that could be saved there was redeloyed to the Mags the system might work a bit better and be a little quicker.
ReplyDeleteThere is no godly reason why the sentencing powers in the Mags can't be increased. That would not hinder anyone wanting a trial- they could still elect, but the huge proportion of guilty pleas that even with current limitations would not be dealt with more harshly at the CC could be retained in the Mags saving money all round.
The old days are history and what has past has past.