header-logo header-logo

25 July 2018
Issue: 7803 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-detail

Lawyers highlight risks of courts project

Transformation programme may ‘fail to deliver expected benefits’, committee warns

Family lawyers and barristers have hit out at the government following a scathing report on the £1.2bn courts modernisation project.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) last week warned of a ‘significant risk that HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) will fail to deliver the benefits it expects’, in its report, Transforming Courts and Tribunals. It said the government’s timetable was unrealistic, consultation inadequate and that the changes—closing courts, introducing virtual hearings, digitising paper services and centralising services—could have unforeseen consequences for taxpayers, court users and justice.

Welcoming the report, Jo Edwards, who gave evidence to PAC’s inquiry on behalf of family lawyers’ group Resolution, said Resolution members regularly reported delays in their local courts, and that one in two said in a Resolution survey that the court they’ve used historically was earmarked for closure.

‘Officials need to ensure the programme delivers real improvements to the courts system, without further restricting access to justice, and isn’t simply a cost-cutting exercise,’ she said.

Andrew Walker QC, chair of the Bar, which also raised its concerns to the inquiry, said: ‘Engagement with the Bar has been fraught with practical difficulties of HMCTS’s making, and too often barristers and the Bar Council have wasted the valuable time that they are being asked to give to this (entirely at their own expense).

‘We are also not satisfied that sufficient attention is being paid to the implications that digitising legal processes, and the widespread use of video technology, may have for justice and fairness in every case. This must include ensuring that independent legal advice is received when it is needed most, especially before individuals make decisions that may have important implications, such as before indicating a likely plea when you are charged with a criminal offence.

‘HMCTS has been reluctant to address this issue, as the availability of legal advice is not part of its design brief.’

However, HMCTS CEO Susan Acland-Hood said: ‘We do recognise the need to engage more actively with our key stakeholders, and this is a key priority over the next phase of reform. This is a challenging programme but we remain confident that it is on track.’

Issue: 7803 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-details
RELATED ARTICLES

MOVERS & SHAKERS

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

Senior appointments in insurance services and commercial services announced

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Aviation disputes practice strengthened by London partner hire

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Residential property lawyer promoted to partnership

NEWS
he abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC
Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll