header-logo header-logo

Court reform: proceed with caution

29 March 2018 / Andrew Walker KC
Issue: 7787 / Categories: Opinion , Legal aid focus , Profession , Technology
printer mail-detail
andrew_walker_for_chairs_column_site

Andrew Walker QC reflects on the impact of a lack of consultation & the challenges of rushed court reforms

Those who suggest that the Bar is set against the court reform programme are wrong. There is much that we support, but not all.

When they speak of court reform, many think only of technology or investment in infrastructure, and that will be my focus here, but there are strands to the programme that have little, if anything, to do with these. The aim, for example, to broaden the range of judicial decisions that are made by non-judges (and even non-lawyers), under the ‘supervision’ of judges, is more concerned with greater centralisation of services and with savings in the judicial salaries budget. Whether or not this is truly a matter of ‘reform’, it is critical that judicial decisions should continue to be made by judges, independently from the executive branch of government.

So far as technology and infrastructure are concerned, a sum of around £1.1bn is being spent on this, across

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll