header-logo header-logo

30 March 2021
Issue: 7927 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Criminal , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

Decade of cuts led to justice crisis

Peers have added their voice to the growing chorus lamenting the crisis in the criminal justice system

In a report, COVID-19 and the courts, into the impact on civil and criminal justice, published this week, the House of Lords Constitution Committee found courts and tribunals were ‘in a vulnerable position going into this period of crisis’ due to reduced funding, budget cuts and closure of court buildings in the preceding decade. These ‘pre-existing challenges exacerbated the devastating impact of the pandemic’, the committee found.

The committee called on the government to continue to invest in technology for remote hearings but to ensure access to justice and not to regard changes made in response to the pandemic as irreversible.

It recommended the government further increase the legal aid budget to meet challenges that arose during the pandemic, and to set out a plan to address the backlog in criminal, family and employment cases to reduce it ‘well below pre-pandemic levels’. It said this should include ‘plans to make maximum use of existing real estate, open more Nightingale courtrooms, increase the number of sitting days and increase the number of part-time and retired judges sitting. All of this will require additional investment by the government’.

Baroness Taylor, chair of the committee, said: ‘For justice to be done, and be seen to be done, considerable new effort and investment is required.’

Criminal court statistics for October to December 2020, published last week, revealed 56,827 outstanding cases at the Crown Court, a 49% increase on the previous year. Bar Council Chair Derek Sweeting QC said it was the largest backlog of cases for six years and warned the impact would be felt most by the victims, witnesses, defendants and other members of public who would have to wait years for justice.

Richard Miller, head of justice at the Law Society, said there is ‘an urgent need to maximise existing court capacity and judicial sitting days’. On technology, he said it might ‘make sense to continue remotely long-term, but a thorough investigation into the effect of remote justice on court users and justice outcomes is required before its widespread adoption’.

Issue: 7927 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Criminal , Legal aid focus
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
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
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll