In my book, I consider the question whether there is a ‘compensation culture’. Over recent years, it has been frequently argued that we have become too keen to resort to litigation when things go wrong – on the basis that bad events are other people’s’ fault -, rather than accept that sometimes one is the victim of bad luck. I argue that this view should be challenged – on the basis that research evidence shows that huge numbers of people with potential legal claims in fact do nothing about them – either through ignorance, fear of costs, reluctance to go to lawyers etc.
At the same time, however, advertising campaigns encouraging people to claim when they have had accidents are perceived as encouraging the bringing of unmeritorious proceedings, which in turn can add to insurance costs.
The Government has recently come to the view that the present state of the law has led to people thinking that they should not intervene in emergencies, or run public events, or lead school trips in case they get sued for negligence if things go wrong. And insurance companies have been seen to be charging high premiums which have led to events not taking place.
The Government’s response is the publication of the rather imposingly named Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill 2014-15. It is actually a very short Bill, but one which, if enacted, will require judges to make some rather teasing judgements. Indeed, the outcome of the Bill may be to encourage, rather than deter, the bringing of actions.
The Bill provides that when dealing with negligence claims or claims for breach of statutory duty the courts should to consider:
- whether the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred when the person was acting for the benefit of society or any of its members (clause 2) ;
- whether the person , in carrying out the activity giving rise to the claim , demonstrated a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others (clause 3) ;
- whether the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred when the person was acting heroically by intervening in an emergency to assist an individual in danger and without regard to his or her own safety or other interests (clause 4).
For further information see https://www.gov.uk/government/news/grayling-law-must-protect-everyday-heroes
See also http://public-scrutiny-office.org/bills/2014-2015/social-action-responsibility-and-heroism
The National Crime Agency started work on 8 October 2013. (See blog for that date).
Its launch was accompanied by the publication of a Government paper setting out a strategy for dealing with serious and organised crime.
The paper defined organised crime as including:
- drug trafficking,
- human trafficking, and
- organised financial crimes, counterfeiting, organised
acquisitive crime and cyber crime.
The paper stated that the strategy also deals with serious crime which demands a national coordinated response, notably other fraud and child sexual exploitation.
The paper out reasons why dealing with organised crime is important.
” Organised crime is a threat to our national security. It costs the United Kingdom at least £24 billion each year, leads to loss of
life and can deprive people of their security and prosperity. Crime groups intimidate and corrupt and have a corrosive impact on
some communities. Cyber crime undermines confidence in our communications technology and online economy. Organised
immigration crime threatens the security of our borders. We regard human trafficking as a pernicious form of modern slavery.
Financial crime can undermine the integrity and stability of our financial markets and institutions.
Overseas, organised crime undermines good governance and the stability of countries of strategic importance to our national security. Organised crime groups overseas can facilitate or engage in terrorism.”
To counter this, the Government states that the aim of its strategy is:
“to substantially reduce the level of serious and organised crime affecting the UK and its interests.”
The strategy uses the framework developed for counter-terrorist work. It has four components:
- prosecuting and disrupting people engaged in serious and organised crime (Pursue);
- preventing people from engaging in this activity (Prevent);
- increasing protection against serious and organised crime (Protect); and
- reducing the impact of this criminality where it takes place (Prepare).
The Government has undertaken to publish annual reports setting out the extent to which these objectives have been achieved.
Looking at these issues from the perspective of the English Legal System it seems clear that the balance between policing activity being delivered locally to local communities – which has until recently been the predominant model – and being delivered nationally to deal with new forms of criminality is bound to change. This shift is not a question that has been widely discussed in public media.
In June 2014, the Government has started the process of giving the strategy more legal backing through the Serious Crime Bill 2014. It will be some months before this reaches the statute book. But in outline the Bill seeks to
- Improve the Government’s ability to recover criminal assets by amending the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
- Amend the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to ensure sentences for attacks on computer systems fully reflect the damage they cause.
- Create a new offence targeting people who knowingly participate in an organised crime group.
- Extend the scope of Serious Crime Prevention Orders and gang injunctions.
- Establish new powers to seize, detain and destroy chemical substances suspected of being used as cutting agents for illegal drugs.
- Clarify the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to make it explicit that cruelty which is likely to cause psychological harm to a child is an offence.
- Create a new offence of possessing ‘paedophilic manuals’.
- Extend the extra-territorial reach of the offences in the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 (and the equivalent Scottish legislation) so that they apply to habitual as well as permanent UK residents.
- Allow people suspected of committing an offence overseas under sections 5 (preparation of terrorist acts) or 6 (training for terrorism) of the Terrorism Act 2006 to be prosecuted in the UK.
For further details on the strategy, see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/serious-organised-crime-strategy.
For details on the Bill, see https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-powers-to-tackle-serious-and-organised-crime-announced
Family law places great emphasis on the child. Ensuring that the interests of the child are addressed is central. But how can these issues be addressed if, in the course of proceedings – whether in court or mediation – those taking decisions do not hear directly from the children who are going to be affected by those decisions?
In theory the child’s interests are represented by CAFCASS (the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service). But it has been recognised that however well staff in CAFCASS work, they may not always fully understand the child’s perspective. In 2006, CAFCASS established the Family Justice Young People’s Board (FJYPB) – a group of around 40 children and young people who have been through the family justice system or who have an interest in children’s rights and the family courts.
The Board has recently been developing proposals to ensure that the practice and procedure of judges and mediators gives children the opportunity to be heard directly.
In a recent speech to the FJYPB, Simon Hughes, Minister in the Ministry of Justice, announced that the Government would seek to implement proposals for all children over the age of 10 to be heard, both in couirt and in mediations. The precise details of how this will happen still need finalising, but this seems to be a step to which the President of the Family Court, CAFCASS and mediators are committed to.
For more details, see https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/simon-hughes-speech-at-the-voice-of-the-child-conference.
See also http://www.cafcass.gov.uk/about-cafcass/how-we-are-organised/family-justice-young-peoples-board.aspx
In March 2014, the Government published guidance on the operation of the revised Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.
This can be seen at https://www.gov.uk/criminal-injuries-compensation-a-guide
Accompanying the creation of the single Family Court and the single County Court, the Government moved swiftly to introduce new court fees, adopting – for the most part – the principles it set out in its consultation document published in late 2013 (see blog March 2014).
The Government has acted to introduce new fees which, broadly, increase as a case proceeds – with court hearings incurring rather higher fees than hitherto. Those interested in the details can see the new fees set out in https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/court-fees-proposals-for-reform.
Interestingly, the announcement of these increases was made on the same day that a research report was published which suggested that on the whole litigants thought the fee levels were reasonable and would not have been deterred from bringing a case simply because of the fees charged. See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-role-of-court-fees-in-affecting-users-decisions-to-bring-cases-to-the-civil-and-family-courts.
Time will tell whether the new fees act as a deterrent to access to justice; intuitively it could be anticipated that there would be some effect.
In addition to creating the new Family Court, the Crime and Courts Act 2013 also established the single County Court. This is achieved by making provision for the removal of existing geographical jurisdictional boundaries from the county courts. This should allow greater flexibility in the use of courts and the removal of unnecessary traps for the unwary.
Existing court buildings will remain in use as the new County Court will sit at various locations within England and Wales in a way similar to the High Court. It will have a single seal and a single identity to indicate its national jurisdiction. The court houses in which it will convene will act as hearing centres with court administrative offices attached to them.
The introduction of the single County Court requires consequential amendments throughout the Civil Procedure Rules, for example the renaming of individual county courts as County Court hearing centres.
All claims issued at the County Court Money Claims Centre or at the renamed County Court Business Centre (including those issued online through Money Claim Online) will remain at the business centre of receipt up to the point where a hearing is required, or the claimant wishes to enforce a judgment other than by way of issue of a warrant. Restrictions on where particular types of claim may be issued (e.g. forfeiture claims) are removed. However, if a claim has not been started in the appropriate County Court hearing centre, then, following issue, the claim or application will be sent or transferred to the appropriate hearing centre in accordance with the relevant rules and practice directions relating to those proceedings.
Alongside the creation of the single County Court, the Government has abolished the need for the Lord Chancellor to give his approval for every occasion that a High Court Judge hears a case at a County Court, removing an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and making sure judges can sit where they are needed.
The Government has also made a series of changes to the powers that can be exercised by the different levels of the civil court system. For example, the maximum limit for the value of equity cases which can be held at local county courts had remained unchanged since the 1990s at £30,000. Any cases above that level had to go to the High Court instead, creating an ever-greater workload burden there. So reflecting current house prices, the level has been raised to £350,000, so that these cases can once again be settled at local county courts without the delay of going to the High Court.
Similarly, for cases about claims for money, the Government increased the minimum value where cases can be commenced at the High Court, from £25,000 to £100,000. This again reflects long-term inflation and will make sure county courts can deal with smaller cases more quickly and the High Court will not be unnecessarily clogged up. The exception to this is for personal injury cases, for which other reforms have already been put in place over the past few years, including the overhaul of no-win no-fee deals and creation and extension of the Claims Portal which now sees tens of thousands of cases dealt with quickly and efficiently.
The changes have also made it possible for freezing orders to be issued in more circumstances at the County Court, to reflect the higher value of the cases they will be hearing.
The view of the Minister are in https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-quiet-revolution-in-our-civil-courts
The long-awaited Family Court opened for business on 22 April 2014.
Following enactment of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, instead of family cases being divided amongst Family Proceedings Courts (as Magistrates’ Courts dealing with family matters are called), county courts and the Family Division of the High Court, there is now a single point of contact for all family matters that need resolution by courts. In practice, the judges that formerly undertook family work will continue to do so, and the buildings used for family cases will be the same. But questions of how matters are to be divided between the different types of judge will be decided by judicial administration on a practical basis. It is specifically provided that certain types of simple cases may be dealt with by magistrates sitting on their own, rather than in panels. Justices’ clerks and their assistants are also given wider powers to assist the judiciary in straightforward cases.
As you will be aware, the Children and Families Act 2014 was given Royal Assent on 13 March and a number of significant family justice reforms will be introduced from 22 April.
The reforms to the family justice system are aimed at improving the way the system functions as a whole. In particular, we want to make sure that the welfare of children is at the centre of decisions, reduce delays in proceedings, and encourage families to use court as a last resort to resolve disputes. We are:
- Placing a requirement on a person to attend a meeting to find out about mediation before they are allowed to make certain applications to the family court, for example, disputes over finances or children arrangements (unless exemptions apply – such as in cases of domestic violence).
- Moving to the use of child arrangements orders (CAOs) in place of ‘residence’ and ‘contact’ orders.
- Streamlining court processes for divorce and dissolution of a civil partnership by removing the requirement for the court to consider the arrangements for children as part of these processes.
- Introducing a 26-week time limit for completing care and supervision cases, to improve the timeliness of finding a permanent placement for children. The court will have the discretion to extend cases by up to eight weeks at a time, should that be necessary to resolve proceedings justly.
- Restricting the use of expert evidence in children (both public and private law) proceedings to that which is necessary to resolve the proceedings justly and requires courts to have regard to the impact of delay on the child when deciding whether to permit expert evidence in children proceedings and whether the court can obtain information from parties already involved;
- Reducing unnecessary administrative work, by removing the need to renew interim care orders and interim supervision orders as frequently, allowing the courts to set interim orders which are in line with the timetable for the case.
The Children and Families Act 2014 is also brought into effect on the same day. This implements the recommendations of the Norgrove Committee on Family Justice. It
- makes attendance at a meeting to find out about mediation a compulsory requirement, before any proceedings before a court can be started (save for exceptional cases, e.g. where there is domestic violence) so separating couples must consider alternatives to court battles when resolving financial matters and arrangements for child contact;
- replaces residence and contact orders with ‘child arrangements orders’ designed to encourage parents to focus on the child’s needs rather than what they see as their own ‘rights’;
- introduces a 26 week time limit for care proceedings to further reduce the excessive delays in these cases and give greater certainty to the children involved (this can be extended by up to 8 weeks if necessary to resolve a case justly);
- streamlines the process of obtaining a divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership;
- restricts the use of expert witnesses in both private and public law children proceedings, requiring the court to consider the impact of delay on the child and whether the information could actually be obtained from parties already before the court.
The impact of cuts to legal aid are that it appears there are many more litigants in person before the courts. It remains to be seen whether, when the changes have bedded down, this remains the case.