Paul Harris explains how simple speedy summary justice is meant to work and asks whether it can achieve its goals


Approximately one year ago, a special team, comprising civil servants and members of the Prime Minister’s office, was assembled to deliver a new project. The project was Simple Speedy Summary Justice (SSSJ) and some of its revolutionary aims were:

l To ensure that appropriate disclosure was made at the first hearing (statements, cassettes, videos, previous convictions etcetera).

l To ensure that a plea was indicated at the first hearing and, in the case of a not-guilty plea, hearings directions ordered for the further conduct of the hearing, following an enquiry by

the tribunal into the central issues.

l Pre-trial reviews were abandoned, except in exceptional cases, so that case progression would take place outside the courtroom.

l Trials to be listed within a set time, usually six weeks.



Why do we need it?

One might cynically suggest that the above aims are no more than an expression of what should already take place and that a large team of civil servants, many of whom have no experience of running cases, are not needed to implement these aims. After all, prior to SSSJ, an advocate would usually turn up to court, expect the advance information to be served at some point during the morning (day), advise the client, and then enter a plea. So, what is new?



Well, the government wants to improve the time in which summary cases are dealt with. It wants to establish clear guidelines for appropriate disclosure to enable defendants to be properly advised at the first hearing, and to ensure that trials are listed far quicker than is currently the case.



Is it helpful?

From a defence point of view, this is a scheme which, in theory, should be embraced. After all, in a post-Carter climate, where appropriate reimbursement for travel and waiting is no longer paid, the fewer hearings there are, the better. Additionally, there is greater pressure on the Crown to ensure that it is ready for trial within a shorter time period, which is in the interests of all defendants. In theory, therefore, this scheme should not be particularly controversial. When one considers all the battles we currently face, this ‘should’ work for everybody.



But can it work?

The introduction of means testing can often delay the granting of public funding. The result of this is that no progress can be made at the first hearing. Any client whose means are slightly complicated may not have legal aid for the first hearing, and if representation is required, there will need to be an adjournment, thus partially defeating the aim of the scheme.



One of the main principles of Carter is that reductions in fees will be made up by an increase in volume. The plan was that an advocate should be able to represent as many as ten clients in a single morning. However, the expectations of SSSJ make this impossible. One case may involve viewing CCTV, obtaining instructions, considering applications for bad character, hearsay and special measures. Additionally, if the client is in custody, or does not speak English, or is vulnerable, preparing for one hearing could take some time.



If, as the Carter plan requires, only a few lawyers are at court, the system could grind to a halt. Consequently, the pressure to get cases on quickly could lead to a substantial reduction in the quality of representation and, ultimately, to miscarriages of justice.



The justice imperative

SSSJ is being introduced at a time of great change in criminal defence work. The government wants to prioritise this scheme and we, as a profession, want it to work. We want to play our part in improving the working of the courts. But we cannot do so unless there are proper resources for us to provide proper representation and give clients the service they are entitled to.



A great deal of money had been spent on setting up this team, much of it spent on meetings, on conferences, and on nice lunches. Unfortunately, none of it, as far as I am aware, has been diverted into the Court Service, the prosecution or the defence – the people most qualified and needed to implement it successfully. Justice must not be sacrificed for the sake of speedy disposal, justice must always be considered and measured, and clearly those criteria are more important than how quickly a case is dealt with.



The language of SSSJ needs to be refined to emphasise to all those agencies involved, particularly the defendants, that justice is not being sacrificed to save money and time and that obtaining a fair and just outcome is the underlying principle of the scheme.



Paul Harris is a criminal defence partner at east London firm Edward Fail Bradshaw & Waterson