It had been at least two years since I
had last sat on a means court. There
were over forty on the list and about a dozen attendees. One common feature was that the “histories”
as recorded on the means files of each of them were so truncated as to be
almost meaningless. That being the case
where possible our L/A had to send for the original court files to be certain
of the facts and chronologies. But our
usher was functioning over two other courts also so it takes no imagination to
picture the pressure she was under. We
actually managed in the three hour session to deal with eight of the attendees the
remainder filling the downtime of other courts.
For the others listed (the non attendees) we sat at 2.00p.m. to decide
on warrants and then another blatant inefficiency in administration appeared
like Hamlet`s ghost. In order, as we had
expected, to issue warrants with or without bail we had to be sure that such a
warning was written on the summonses which had been served on those failing to
appear. But lo! No such warning had been written. What had
been
written as a last sentence was a warning to those who failed to show that “the
court would consider other measures” without explicitly mentioning the threat
of a warrant being issued. My colleague
and I with the consent of our L/A decided that in those circumstances it would
be unjust to issue warrants and instead they would be written to again to
appear at the next means court with a clearly worded threat of warrant with or
without bail for those who failed to attend at that later date. But and it`s a big “but” the original letters
were signed off pp not by a legal advisor, a legal manager nor a Deputy
Justices Clerk but by the Justices`
Clerk; he who must be obeyed who has ultimate responsibility for an entire
justice area. If he had actually approved
the wording it would appear he was not as competent as perhaps he should
be. If he had given the job to an underling
and allowed the latter to have his signature attached his management skills
were perhaps open to question. The
upshot of this seemingly minor carelessness was yet another hidden increase in
costs associated with time wasted and future time to be allocated. Add the myriad such situations in our court
systems owing to staff reductions, staff incompetence, low staff morale, poor
quality management and a box ticking mentality and it is quite clear why with
an induced reduced workload magistrates` courts are almost as inefficient in
practice as they were a decade ago notwithstanding all the statistics, video
gizmos and grandstanding by the Ministry of efficiently having adapted to a 23%
budget reduction and more to come. But what do I know?
No comments:
Post a Comment