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

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NLJ Career Profile: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law

NLJ Career Profile: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law

Mark Hastings, founding partner of Quillon Law, on turning dreams into reality and pushing back on preconceptions about partnership

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll