Report comment

I have not seen Lord Thomas's report, but I viewed the whole blessed TV transcript of the (very courteous) Justice Committee evidence. Lord Thomas is no fool, and he had a pretty good idea of the committee's concerns. He played to these concerns: for example, of the less than two hours of his oral evidence, 15 minutes was devoted to diversity in the judiciary, and 9 minutes to the possible distinctions between English and Welsh law.

Near the beginning, he was asked if it was still his view (as apparently expressed in his report) that the increases in court fees and winnowing of legal aid meant there "was a danger of driving justice out of reach." He answered: "Absolutely."

The reality, as Lord Thomas recognises, is that the justice system has no revenue raising (and keeping) powers, and that in the current political climate there is no mileage in someone in his position denouncing the cuts to the funding of justice. He did remark that much more use could be made of IT, and he was not opposed (on that ground) to the closure of courts, although he did point out that in certain parts of the country that would mean unrealistic travel times.

He came across as politically astute, and, perhaps, only naïve in opining that "on the whole legal aid reforms have worked."

There were some broader issues he mentioned, as the news report at the head of this thread mentions, which are debateable. I was struck by his comment that "our system [of civil justice] is designed for lawyers", which slips past the entire adversarial system long established in the UK, and could be seen (and no doubt will be) as laying the blame for procedural fights on the lawyers for the parties..

While Lord Thomas's evidence hardly touched on the Woolf reforms, I endorse what other commentators above have had to say. As I recall, a principal spur to the Woolf reforms was the perception that justice was being denied by a focus on procedure rather than substantive rights. Hence the sweeping away of the old RSC and CCR, and the introduction, with the CPR (originally a very stark pared down set of rules) intended to avoid the previous procedural complexity by a focus on 'the overriding objective.' The trouble was that this required an interventionist judiciary, much more accustomed to adjudicating than intervening, and the whole scheme failed because the judges were unable for the most part to change their mindset and intervene procedurally.

In my experience in the early days of the CPR judges treated departures form the CPR as they did departures from the RSC/CCR. It seems only to have been with the Mitchell case that the full potential (or 'horrors') of the CPR bit home. No doubt the delay was because the judges recognised the inherent justice in allowing flexibility, and allowing the parties some leeway.

In the brave new world Messrs Cameron and Osborne wish on us, there may be two choices: public justice, with some leeway to accord with notions of justice, but at an (exorbitant) price; or private justice (arbitrations, Beth Din, Shariah courts) with little oversight or redress.

Either path raises serious concerns about the development of English common law, and therefore the status of English law as a widely accepted and respected set of rules for governing relations between parties in legal relationships. A longer term effect of the Government's court reforms could be the accelerated decline of English law as a reliable and trusted code in international commercial relationships.