header-logo header-logo

07 August 2024
Issue: 8083 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , In Court
printer mail-detail

Judicial priorities for 2024-25

The Judicial Office has set out three priorities in its business plan for 2024-25, published this week

They are: recognise and promote the judiciary’s strengths; build judicial unity; and reduce backlogs, improve timeliness and maintain quality. To achieve this, the Judicial Office aims to secure ‘adequate, sustained’ funding and resources for courts and tribunals.

Baroness Carr, Lady Chief Justice, and Sir Keith Lindblom, senior president of tribunals, said conditions were challenging, ‘with large backlogs compounded by resourcing and capacity constraints across key parts of the system’.

Michelle Crotty, chief executive of the Judicial Office, said the goals were ‘ambitious but achievable’.

Issue: 8083 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , In Court
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll