Simple speedy summary justice is a Government project to improve the way Magistrates' Courts handle summary cases. Here Tim Frost recounts his experience of taking part in one of the pilot projects


From a defence practitioner’s point of view, the prospect of more change and pressure upon us in a busy court environment can fill you with horror and trepidation. Certainly, when West Cumbria was chosen as one of four pilot sites throughout the country for the then Department for Constitutional Affairs’ ‘Simple Speedy Summary Justice’ project, my reaction was one of mistrust and suspicion about the government’s motives.



Historically, our supposedly joined-up criminal justice system has changed and reformed, while dragging the defence along in its trail, rather than consulting in any meaningful way with us. So, knowing that what the government pilots today, becomes the reality of tomorrow, I felt very strongly that if we were going to have to cope with a new system in the courts, we, the defence, should have the maximum effective input and influence over how that system should work. If the proposal were going to be implemented, I wanted to be able to tell the authorities where there would be problems and difficulties before it started rather than the usual sticking-plaster approach after the event.



The defence community is at the sharp end in the criminal justice system. We know in practical terms how our courts work, what our clients are like, and how we interact with the other members of the system – be they the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), police, courts, probation or witness service.



If there is one piece of advice I can pass on it is this: while the system is a national initiative, at local level it is very much up to you and your colleagues how best to adapt it for your local conditions. Use this opportunity to have a meaningful input into how it will work.



The basic building block of any case before the courts is the quality of the file prepared by the police. In our experience, probably like that of solicitors up and down the country, that quality was sadly lacking. It was the cause of much of the delays within the court system. Everyone, to a man, agreed that if Speedy Justice was to work, the police had to provide an acceptable standard of file for the first hearing.



Ask your local Court Service to let you know the figures for adjournments and reasons for ineffective trials. Despite general views to the contrary, the prosecution cause as many adjournments and ineffective trials as the defence. Much of it was due to incomplete or inadequate file preparation.



In West Cumbria, we discussed in detail how best we could achieve an effective first hearing. All parties agreed that a basic level of file which should enable the defence to take proper and meaningful instructions, would be made up as follows:

l A case summary and one that was accurate;

l The main statements on which the Crown intended to rely and which disclosed a prima facie case;

l The custody record and interview tapes;

l Any CCTV evidence (in DVD form) that the Crown intended to rely on; and

l An up-to-date record of previous convictions.



The file preparation required was in accordance with the Prosecution Team Manual of Guidance, and was a manageable task for the police to provide. The police fear was that effectively a ‘trial ready’ file would need to be prepared for first hearing – and they simply could not resource that. Clearly, that was not what was envisaged. While other areas had different content in their files, we took the view that, for the system to work, it had to be reasonably simple, proportionate to the offence, and containing sufficient detail to allow us to take meaningful instructions.



I am a firm believer that our experience can in general terms be replicated in most areas. Cumbria may perhaps not be the busiest of areas but proportionally the defence, CPS and police have a similar number of files to deal with per person, whether it is a shire area like Cumbria, a busy metropolitan district, or a large city.



That basic file needed to be available at the first hearing with facilities to view CCTV evidence readily to hand at the court for the defence and their client. The Court Service found funding for a combined TV/DVD/video. The police provided funding to enable CCTV footage to be transferred to DVD format.



In addition, the defence proposed that, to provide realistic time-scales for the police and the other parties, a timetable be introduced for ‘Narey + 7 days’ for first appearance in court. There was significant CPS opposition to that, but events have shown that for us it has worked. Only you will know if it will work in your area.



So, what is in it for the defence? Speedy Justice should not be an excuse for sloppy justice or be an attempt by the government and the courts to force defendants to plead guilty for the sake of cost cutting and statistics. If the latest proposals for preferred supplier and the Carter reforms tell us anything, it is that this government is not about to throw us any extra cash.



The fixed-fee environment in which we operate does not bode well for what the government, the media, and thus the general public perceive as fat-cat lawyers milking the system for our maximum benefit. The level at which fixed fees are pitched inevitably means that we have to try very hard to make any modest profit. A case that takes four or five hearings and for which we get paid a category 1 lower standard fee is manifestly not sustainable.



However, being in a position, if appropriate, to enter a guilty plea at first hearing and proceed to sentence on that day or after a short adjournment for a pre-sentence report, makes better economic sense. Similarly, a not-guilty plea at first hearing, when a trial date is able to be fixed with tailored directions given by the court that avoids wasteful and repeated case management hearings, again makes economic sense for us in the defence arena.



No system is perfect. Each area has its own quirks and its own way of operating which suit their local conditions and traditions. If this system is to work for your area, engage with the process, be vocal about your fears and concerns. Do not end up with a system which others think looks good on paper, and you in practice know is unworkable. This is a golden opportunity for us as defence practitioners to tell those who matter that this is what we know will work, this is how our area can feasibly operate, and this is something that we can cope with.



One obstacle to this system working at its best is legal aid. No doubt everyone has their own view on how the introduction of means testing has had an effect on the time it has taken for cases to be processed through the system. It has been widely reported in the Gazette and elsewhere. Those of us in the four test areas highlighted our concerns in the months before means testing was implemented and how it would potentially have an adverse effect on the effectiveness of first hearings. The government decided to proceed as planned, which has regrettably seen some areas experience negative effects on the operation of Speedy Justice courts at the first hearing.



Some improvements have been made and there has been a review. Some areas have been able to put in temporary additional resources to process applications quickly but that is unsustainable and is not likely to be generally available. The government says it is listening to the profession’s concerns.



In my view, you should not allow your local courts to brow beat you into representing clients without a significant degree of certainty on funding decisions. In our area, and I suspect in others, where clients are on benefit of some sort, as a matter of course we complete both a CDS14 and 15. In that way, the risk of declaring the wrong benefit is managed, as the declared income on the CDS15 will ensure a certificate is granted (subject, of course, to the interests of justice test being passed). The Legal Services Commission appears to have approved such an approach and is due to issue formal guidance to reflect that.



Speedy Justice is a total package; it will not work if the relationships between the parties in the criminal justice system are unequal – that more than anything should be the incentive for the defence practitioners to engage.

l Fellow practitioners are free to contact me via email on TFStBees@aol.com.



Tim Frost is a senior criminal solicitor with KJ Commons & Co in West Cumbria. He sits on the criminal case management group of the Cumbria Criminal Justice Board





The roll-out of Simple Speedy Summary Justice

The four pilot projects – in Thames, Camberwell, Coventry and West Cumbria – finished earlier this year and were judged by the government to be a sufficient success to implement them in each of the 360 magistrates’ courts in England and Wales.



The then Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, said: ‘Simple things have made a real difference. Clear and constructive inter-agency communication, information being available in advance, and greater familiarity with the cases being brought before the court. This has been underpinned by everyone involved working better together.’



In the pilots:

l The average time taken between charge and conclusion more than halved – down to 23 days;

l There was a 30% increase in guilty pleas at first hearing – and 59% of guilty pleas were dealt with there and then, meaning first hearings were often final hearings;

l 70% of contested cases were concluded after just two hearings;

l There was a 70% reduction in interim hearings; and

l Trials were happening on the date fixed and in good time, between six and ten weeks after first hearing.



The government said this led to improved prosecution preparation for first hearing, a reduction in requests for adjournments, and more effective hearings. After the first hearing, if it is not resolved, regular meetings between the designated case progression officers in each agency aim to ensure that the issues identified at first hearing are resolved in advance of the second, enabling trials to take place on time.