Musings and Snippets from a recently retired JP. I served for 31 years, mostly in west London. I was Chairman of my Bench for some years, and a member of the National Bench Chairmen's Forum All cases are based on real ones, but anonymised and composited. All opinions are those of one or more individuals. JPs swear to enforce the law of the land, whether or not they approve of it. Nothing on here constitutes legal advice.
Monday, May 27, 2013
Horribly Plausible
Tuesday's 'Times' (££paywall) front-pages a story that the Courts' Service is to be privatised. The writers are respected journalists with good contacts, and I suspect that the core of the story is based on fact.
Having spent 90 minutes, and having had to make five separate visits to different counters, just to issue a bog standard urgent application to suspend a warrant the other day in Birmingham County Court, I'm pretty keen on some sort of reform. No doubt this is not it.
Always seek out the weasel word; in this case "wholesale". Remove that and they can still go ahead with some other form of comprehensive privatisation.
I just picked up The Times in the Law Faculty and had to re-read the date in case I'd gone through a hole in space-time to April 1st. The paper's been being passed from person to horrified person with everyone agreeing that, if privatising the court interpreters went so wrong, this has the potential for major disaster - as well as being fundamentally unconstitutional, of course.
Here is a link to the article in The Times http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10083214/Courts-may-be-privatised-to-save-Ministry-of-Justice-1bn.html
Headline: Courts may be privatised to save Ministry of Justice £1bn.
The courts may be privatised in a justice shake-up that could save the Ministry of Justice £1 billion a year. ..The plans would free the courts from Treasure control, placing court buildings and thousands of staff in the hands of private companies.
The system would be funded by extracting larger fees from wealthy litigants and private sector investment, and by encouraging hedge funds to invest by an attractive rate of return, according to The Times.
Fears that privatisation would erode the independence of the courts would be allayed by placing the courts under a Royal Charter, as has been proposed for the regulation of the press.
Earlier this year Justice Secretary Chris Grayling paved the way for reform by instructing officials to explore plans and ensure that the Courts and Tribunal Service provides value for money.
Mr Grayling, who is thought to be in strongly in favour of the reforms, will be presented with a paper outlining the options within two weeks, and the changes could begin this autumn....
the Today programme on Radio 4 was interviewing a 'government spokesman' who was saying the aren't planning to privatise the court system.
No. Just the buildings and the employment of staff. Because we've seen how well that works in other contexts.
Oh, and apparently CPS do far too much photocopying and printing of paper and so they shouldn't have any trouble cutting costs by reducing this. Everyone should be able to use computerised case files.
And of course there is the problem that many courts will not allow advocates to plug in laptops at court, and battery life may not be enough for a full day in court.
Anon @ 23.13. I think you're right. They will come back saying "we listened, so we we are "only" planning to sell off the buildings / outsource staff to the lowest bidder.
I think part of the problem with the cuts to the court service is that the costs just get shoved elsewhere, or has effects which are harder to track and quantify . Cuts to legal aid = more litigants in person = more court time and excessive delays - the people affected are the individuals trying to sort out contact with their children, or going through the small claims court. I I need to telephone my local court it can often take up to half an hour to be able to get through, The phone lines are not open all day but there is no facility to leave a message, the court no longer has a fax and they make it clear that e-mail is not necessarily checked more than once a day. I am still waiting on one case for an order which was made on 28th January. The court say they can't send it out as it wasn't e-filed by the local authority, the local authority doesn't respond to chasing letters/ e-mails / calls - it's a shambles.
What is puzzling in all the talk of costs is that nobody, and that includes the MA, talks about so many of us who do this for no remuneration and little expense compared to many public bodies. All the time done by BTDCSs, Advisories, all in place of HR etc etc...if only the MA trumpeted this side. Oh, have the MA said anything by the way, at all?
Forget the MA. A complete waste of money and space. Talk about a toothless organisation.
I suspect there are no plans for the sort of privatisation mooted in the papers but the minister wanted to see what the reaction would be to such a story. In any event it would take years to do and there is little chance of a tory majority next time round based on the present performance, and I'm a supporter!
It is what government always does. Put forward something so horrific as policy,wait for people to howl with indignation against the major flaws in the proposals, water down the proposals to something acceptable and then we all fall into line quietly. Of course, if the "watered down proposals" were proposed in the first place we would have howled with indignation against those. However, because the Government always goes with the first option we think have won concessions.
We have to make a stand now...in justice with the courts, interpreters, legal aid and probation, in the NHS, with the restriction of access to GPs, in fact, in almost everything the Government say is an improvement...because it more often that not isn't!
Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.
Having spent 90 minutes, and having had to make five separate visits to different counters, just to issue a bog standard urgent application to suspend a warrant the other day in Birmingham County Court, I'm pretty keen on some sort of reform. No doubt this is not it.
ReplyDeleteThe Guardian runs an article where the MOJ denies the wholesale privatisation of the courts.
ReplyDeleteWhich to believe?
Always seek out the weasel word; in this case "wholesale". Remove that and they can still go ahead with some other form of comprehensive privatisation.
DeleteI just picked up The Times in the Law Faculty and had to re-read the date in case I'd gone through a hole in space-time to April 1st. The paper's been being passed from person to horrified person with everyone agreeing that, if privatising the court interpreters went so wrong, this has the potential for major disaster - as well as being fundamentally unconstitutional, of course.
ReplyDeleteI would think that this story answers the question of whether the Blog could accept advertising without concern.
ReplyDeleteOf course, your own "Oh Dear" at the end, may tend to suggest that whether soemthing "could" be done, does not mean it "should" be done.
Here is a link to the article in The Times http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10083214/Courts-may-be-privatised-to-save-Ministry-of-Justice-1bn.html
ReplyDeleteHeadline: Courts may be privatised to save Ministry of Justice £1bn.
The courts may be privatised in a justice shake-up that could save the Ministry of Justice £1 billion a year. ..The plans would free the courts from Treasure control, placing court buildings and thousands of staff in the hands of private companies.
The system would be funded by extracting larger fees from wealthy litigants and private sector investment, and by encouraging hedge funds to invest by an attractive rate of return, according to The Times.
Fears that privatisation would erode the independence of the courts would be allayed by placing the courts under a Royal Charter, as has been proposed for the regulation of the press.
Earlier this year Justice Secretary Chris Grayling paved the way for reform by instructing officials to explore plans and ensure that the Courts and Tribunal Service provides value for money.
Mr Grayling, who is thought to be in strongly in favour of the reforms, will be presented with a paper outlining the options within two weeks, and the changes could begin this autumn....
the Today programme on Radio 4 was interviewing a 'government spokesman' who was saying the aren't planning to privatise the court system.
ReplyDeleteNo. Just the buildings and the employment of staff. Because we've seen how well that works in other contexts.
Oh, and apparently CPS do far too much photocopying and printing of paper and so they shouldn't have any trouble cutting costs by reducing this. Everyone should be able to use computerised case files.
Oh dear. We go down the path of hackers. Do you really want your documents adapted to the pleasure of your clients. No wifi is hacker proof.
Delete
DeleteAnd of course there is the problem that many courts will not allow advocates to plug in laptops at court, and battery life may not be enough for a full day in court.
Anon @ 23.13. I think you're right. They will come back saying "we listened, so we we are "only" planning to sell off the buildings / outsource staff to the lowest bidder.
DeleteI think part of the problem with the cuts to the court service is that the costs just get shoved elsewhere, or has effects which are harder to track and quantify .
Cuts to legal aid = more litigants in person = more court time and excessive delays - the people affected are the individuals trying to sort out contact with their children, or going through the small claims court.
I I need to telephone my local court it can often take up to half an hour to be able to get through, The phone lines are not open all day but there is no facility to leave a message, the court no longer has a fax and they make it clear that e-mail is not necessarily checked more than once a day.
I am still waiting on one case for an order which was made on 28th January. The court say they can't send it out as it wasn't e-filed by the local authority, the local authority doesn't respond to chasing letters/ e-mails / calls - it's a shambles.
What is puzzling in all the talk of costs is that nobody, and that includes the MA, talks about so many of us who do this for no remuneration and little expense compared to many public bodies. All the time done by BTDCSs, Advisories, all in place of HR etc etc...if only the MA trumpeted this side. Oh, have the MA said anything by the way, at all?
ReplyDeleteForget the MA. A complete waste of money and space. Talk about a toothless organisation.
ReplyDeleteI suspect there are no plans for the sort of privatisation mooted in the papers but the minister wanted to see what the reaction would be to such a story. In any event it would take years to do and there is little chance of a tory majority next time round based on the present performance, and I'm a supporter!
It is what government always does. Put forward something so horrific as policy,wait for people to howl with indignation against the major flaws in the proposals, water down the proposals to something acceptable and then we all fall into line quietly. Of course, if the "watered down proposals" were proposed in the first place we would have howled with indignation against those. However, because the Government always goes with the first option we think have won concessions.
DeleteWe have to make a stand now...in justice with the courts, interpreters, legal aid and probation, in the NHS, with the restriction of access to GPs, in fact, in almost everything the Government say is an improvement...because it more often that not isn't!
See also http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/29/privatising-courts-system-public-citizens but don't waste time with the comments.
ReplyDeletewhen a man is threatened with a grave injustice, he'll accept a lesser one as a favour
ReplyDelete