header-logo header-logo

16 December 2020
Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-detail

COVID hours not working, says Law Society

COVID operating hours are ‘potentially discriminatory’ and ‘unlikely to have a significant impact’ on the backlog of cases in the criminal courts, the Law Society has warned

The extended operating hours have been piloted at seven Crown Court centres as part of HM Courts and Tribunals (HMCTS) plans to tackle the criminal cases backlog, which now stands at more than 53,000 in the Crown Courts and 479,000 in the magistrates’ courts. Trials are currently being listed for 2022.

HMCTS has consulted on whether to extend the extra hours model to a further 65 courts from January.

However, David Greene, president of the Law Society, said: ‘After years of underfunding and cuts, there was already a significant backlog in the criminal courts which has been exacerbated by the pandemic.

‘Although more cases have been disposed of during COVID operating hours, it appears to have been largely due to the fact that shorter, less complex cases are allocated for these times, which means that a greater number of cases can be allocated, and therefore a greater number of those cases crack. It's our view that the vast majority of the benefits observed in the pilots would equally have been delivered had the same mix of cases been allocated to courts operating normal court hours.

‘Given the additional costs of running COVID operating hours courts we do not believe these proposals deliver value for money for the taxpayer or will achieve the objective of clearing the backlog. We are also concerned about the potential for discrimination to members with caring responsibilities.’

Greene suggested the extra resources used to run COVID operating hours be diverted into opening more Nightingale courts to increase court capacity.

The Bar Council is also strongly opposed to COVID operating hours.

Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll