header-logo header-logo

04 August 2023 / Roger Smith
Issue: 8036 / Categories: Opinion , Profession , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Facing facts on court modernisation

132774
Will the courts & tribunals modernisation programme end up a victim of its own overambition? Roger Smith cuts through the government hype to find the facts

The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and the National Audit Office (NAO) are the heavyweight enforcers of governmental financial accountability. As a civil servant or minister, you really do not want to mess with either. Their job is to scrutinise the execution of government policies on the basis of ‘just the facts’—and, more particularly, the figures behind the facts. Not for them the artful seduction of loquacious hype. And, despite a lot of precisely that sort of guff from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS), both auditing bodies have maintained a sceptical focus with regards to the courts and tribunals reform programme—as maintained in the latest report of the PAC published in June.

The reports of both bodies are all the more powerful for the predominance of understatement. Here is the NAO in its latest report

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll