Government wields axe over court estate
The Ministry of Justice today outlined proposals to shut nearly a third of the courts in England and Wales and confirmed it will be looking at ways to make ‘efficiency’ savings in the legal aid budget.
A consultation document details plans for the closure of 157 of the 530 courts in England and Wales – 103 of the 330 magistrates’ courts, and 54 of 219 county courts.
The MoJ said the number and location of the courts do not reflect changes in population, workload or transport links. The closures will save £36m a year.
Courts minister Jonathan Djanogly stressed that the government will continue to support local justice but added: ‘When public finances are under pressure it is vital to eliminate waste and reduce costs. The arrangements we have are historical and now need to be re-assessed to ask whether they properly meet the needs of society as it is today…We have the opportunity to think afresh about how we can create a more modern fit-for-purpose justice system in line with the way we live our lives.’
The MoJ will also look at alternative methods of dispute resolution and ways to make greater use of technology so people do not always have to attend court.
‘Not all disputes need to be resolved in court. I want to explore whether more people can resolve their disputes in a way that leads to faster and more satisfactory solutions,’ said Djanogly.
He added: ‘Across the civil, family and criminal courts, I want to explore ways we can harness technology more effectively so people don’t necessarily have to attend court when they give evidence or access court services.’
On legal aid, justice secretary Kenneth Clarke confirmed that the government is considering its policy on legal aid to make the system more efficient.
He said: ‘This government’s immediate priority is to reduce the financial deficit and encourage economic recovery. We have made it clear that the main burden of the deficit reduction will be borne by reduced public spending, achieved by financial discipline and the most efficient and effective delivery of public services.
‘I am seeking to develop an approach to legal aid spending which balances these necessary financial constraints with the interests of justice and the wider public interest.’
Clarke said the government would seek to develop an approach that was compatible with fair access to justice, the protection of the most vulnerable, the efficient performance of the justice system, and international legal obligations.
The government will ‘seek views’ on its proposals in the autumn, though the MoJ said there will no formal consultation.
Responding to the proposed court closures, Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson commented: ‘The government's intentions in relation to the deficit reduction mean that the Ministry of Justice will have to find significant savings. The Law Society recognises the importance of running the court service as efficiently as possible and that there should be regular reviews as to whether the physical distribution of courts should be changed and whether procedures can be made more efficient with the help of new, accessible and affordable technology. The focus of the announcement appears to be a sensible step.
'In the consultation process we hope the lord chancellor will not lose sight of the fact that courts are important features of local life and that people need to have proper access to the courts. We will play our part in the consultation by studying the proposals carefully, consulting our members and sharing our thoughts about any individual areas where acute problems emerge.’
Comments
Typical cost cutting and of
Typical cost cutting and of note is some courts with known decent Judges going for closure. I have no doubt that some deserve the closure as they have no work but some are being cut for the wrong reasons. Shame on the Government although I doubt its crossed their mind that the costs of travel might be a real issue for the more vulnerable in our society.
Typical Costs Cutting
If you read the consultation document you will see that there is a section about impact assessment on the public including transport difficulties.
Surely any proper impact assessment is going to show that the additional costs of getting to a Court that is further away is going to have a significant impact on Defendants who attend Magistrates Courts. This should not be underestimated. It will be unless there is a substantial response to the Counsultation exercise.
True costs
What the consultation documents ignore is true travel costs. So when they say that the distance between court A and B is X, they often ignore the fact that A is in a transport hub and that the user will have a journey to A, before he goes to B. Even putting that to one side it is tempting to think that a fare of £3 or £4 is quite trivial, and it is, unless you are reliant on subsitence level state benefits which many court users are. In that case a fare of even that modesty can actually be 10% of a person's weekly income.
We also do not know the impact of merged benches. It is assumed that magistrates in area A will be content to travel to area B, but will this be the case? Will those volunteers be as attracted to delivering local justice when it is not their own locality?
There are some clear cases for closure, but they are few and far between. The report is also silent on redundancy impacts, and one wonders whether this is a move further towards central justice centres with high case volumes being despatched by District Judges.
Although it is popular to mock summary justice, the reality is that it delivers a fantastic justice system at an already low price.