Regional administrative courts attract only 8% of cases
The new regional administrative courts have attracted only 8% of new cases since they opened six months ago, figures seen by the Gazette have revealed.
In April 2009, the administrative courts began to sit in four regional venues – Birmingham, Cardiff, Leeds and Manchester – to increase access to justice and take the strain off London.
Since then, 729 cases have commenced in the regional courts, 8.4% of all new cases nationally. Of the cases begun since April, 2.5% have been in Birmingham, 2% in Leeds, 3% in Manchester and 0.8% in Cardiff.
David Greene, president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, said the regional courts had done little to help London: ‘It’s still a very busy court with significant delays in the process.’
But Greene said it was early days and work in the regions would increase as people got used to the new system. ‘People are used to coming to London, and the main chambers doing administrative law are here. It will take time for culture and tastes to change,’ he said.
Greene welcomed the new courts and maintained: ‘It’s sensible that justice should be accessible, and important that these courts are available outside London.’
James Haddleton, vice-president of Leeds Law Society, said that if the figures for immigration reconsiderations, which can only be done in London, are taken out, then 13.8% of new cases began in the regional courts. He noted that Leeds had exceeded its initial target.
Fran Eccles-Bech, executive director of Manchester Law Society, said the new court had hit its target in Manchester and been a success. ‘The purpose of the regionalisation of the court, which is access to justice, has been met and for the first time there are clients sitting in court behind their legal representatives,’ she said.
An HMCS spokesman said initial progress was encouraging.
Comments
regional administrative courts
I used my local Administrative Court for a piece of Crown Office work this year. On the plus side, when we got to listing the case it was efficient and effective. The hearing took place within 3 months of issue, which is very good.
On the negative side, the staff were clearly lacking in training, and this was obvious from day one. When I attended the office for personal issue, having cleared the way on the telephone that morning, the (very young) man on the desk tried to suggest I issue in London. The same mistakes as to the case title and type of action were repeated throughout the life of the case. The final written order was a comedy of errors. Even when I redrafted it (with the Court Officer's consent) they failed to amend typos which had been specifically drawn to their attention. There were also errors in the transcript of judgment which remain uncorrected after publication, which is frustrating as the case has now been reported on Bailii and elsewhere.
Thank you very much for this
Thank you very much for this comment. If anyone else has had a similar experience of the new courts, please do get in touch to let us know.
Regional Administrative Courts
The total number of new cases actually issued in the Regions during 21/04/2009 to 02/11/2009 is 765 which means that the projected annual total (750) has already been exceeded in the 6 months since the Administartive Courts started on 21/04/2009.
Taking into account over 3000 s.103A NIAA 2002 “reconsiderations” (Immigration) which are only issued out of London (and are not dealt with by way of a court hearing in any event), the total of new cases issued in London over the same period is 5886 cases. This means the Regions actually issued a total of 13.08% of the total of new issues – not the 9% quoted to me which was reduced to 8% in the article.
Other types of proceedings issued exclusively out of RCJ include terrorism cases, extradition cases, confiscation order proceedings and the majority of “criminal” cases, although each Region has issued some “criminal” cases and has dealt with them to a conclusion (a Judge having determined that they were suitable for a single Judge or, in a couple of instances, the Region has actually held a Divisional Court hearing, where 2 HCJs were available).
There were potentially another 285 cases with a “regional connection”, so the percentage of regional cases issued in the regions is currently running at 73% of possible regional issues. Had these further cases also been issued in the Regions, (minus 50 “London” cases that were issued in the Regions) the total would have been 1000 cases (exactly!) or 17.7% of the total issue.
The “regional connection” is determined from the information on the court computer system and generally equates with the location of the claimant’s solicitor, so this may not be an entirely accurate picture. The venue provisions in CPD54D do appear to be observed generally, albeit the location of the solicitor’s office rather than of the claimant appears to be the yardstick by which cases are measured.
Change takes longer than 6 months and some firms will continue to issue exclusively out of London for some time. Welsh solicitors seem to issue almost exclusively from Cardiff and, at present, the numbers for Cardiff are boosted by 27 cases issued by firms in Bristol (Bath and Devon/Cornwall), although some Mid- and North Wales solicitors tend to issue in London (or in one case Manchester). A high number of litigants in person (especially immigration matters) still issue out of London despite living in one of the regions – getting the message to “one-time-only” litigants like this is not easy to achieve.
In terms of turnaround, the Regions continue to be able to offer hearing dates very much more quickly than the RCJ, despite the small number of Judges, comparatively. The presence of a High Court Judge in one regional centre tends to lead to a transfer of cases between the Regions, as the HCJs in London tend to be fully occupied with London cases, whereas the Regions can usually offer a little more flexibility.
.