I suppose I am not unique at having reached a stage in life when looking back has a longer perspective than looking forward. Now, a decade or more on from my last sitting, that perspective allows me to consider whether my meandering legal observations were just that or whether there was a substance to them, particularly substance borne out by the reality of change effected by some of the most inept political figures ever to have sat round the cabinet table at 10 Downing Street. It might only be a footnote in history but is there significance in the fact that of all those Lord Chancellors, 14 since 1997 and 9 since 2012, only one ever made it to occupy the highest office of prime minister and that was by common consent the most calamitous, incompetent and hapless of them all; The still Right Honourable Liz Truss?
There is an old saying that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. The criminal justice system has an additional problem. Sometimes it does remember the past because the statistics are still there but nobody appears to have asked whether the problem recorded then is still the problem being experienced today. Back in 2013 this blog was looking at the effectiveness of trials in the magistrates' courts. It was not a new subject even then. In the first quarter of 2013 39,115 trial hearings were listed in magistrates courts. Of those 44% were effective, 38% were cracked and 18% were ineffective indicating that those trials although listed did not take place and had to be re-listed. In practical terms it meant that a courtroom had been occupied. A bench or judge had been allocated. A legal adviser had prepared. Prosecution and defence lawyers may have prepared. Witnesses may have attended. A defendant may have attended. Victims may have waited. And then nothing happens.
According to the MOJ for Q1 2013 court [mal?]administration was responsible for 21% of those ineffective trials, the defendant did not appear for 20% and prosecution witness[es] failed to attend in 16%. Between 2015 and 2019 that ineffective rate had steaded to around 15% but for Q1 2019 court administration problems had risen to 27% and absent defendants to 24%. Within the former group 72% of the failures were due to overlisting. That management issue was and is perhaps the most galling for magistrates. It certainly was for me personally. One couldn`t but feel sympathy for those attending be they lawyers or witnesses who were told that their case could not be heard. In Q1 of this year overlisting accounted for 21% of ineffective trials. So notwithstanding all the apparent technical advantages bestowed upon magistrates courts since my retirement efficiency is running to stand still.
And then along came Covid. The MOJ's current series shows the ineffective-trial rate rising from 17% to 23% across 2020 and 2021. Since then the rate has remained broadly stable at between 21% and 23%. The pandemic undoubtedly disrupted the operation of the courts. That was then, this is now. Why has the criminal court system not returned to its pre Covid level of trial effectiveness? That is rather more difficult to answer. Comparative figures for ineffective trials for 2013 and Q1 2026 are below.
Scattering the numbers above is not to suggest that the good old days of 2013 were better; that would be ludicrous; there have been enormous changes. In 2013 overlisting was already a recognised problem. In 2019 court administration remained the largest individual cause. Then Covid produced a major deterioration and in 2026 overlisting is again the largest recorded reason for ineffective trials. The last thirteen years have seen major reforms in the lower court including the introduction of technology, halving the number of actual courts to the raising, lowering and raising again the sentencing powers of these courts. But overlisting is still the bane for all court users. Perhaps the criminal justice system has spent years trying to deal with the symptoms of delay without sufficiently addressing some of its causes.
END OF PART 1
No comments:
Post a Comment