Martin Partington: Spotlight on the Justice System

Keeping the English Legal System under review

Archive for October 2018

Transformation: Court and Tribunals 2022 – progress reports

leave a comment »

I have observed before that it is quite hard for someone outside HM Court and Tribunal Service to keep up to date with progress with the Transforming our Justice System, now Transformation Courts and Tribunals 2022, reform programme.

For some time there has been an occasional blog, setting out information about a number of initiatives.

In recent months, a monthly Bulletin (also called an electronic Newsletter) has been launched, the latest of which, published on 1 Oct  2018 contains links to a detailed report Reform Update, Autun 2018, setting out the story so far.

The transformation programme is a very substantial one – it consists of some 50 projects. Not all of them have yet started and very few have as yet been completed. Many ideas are, quite rightly, being tested and evaluated before being nationally rolled out.

The easiest way to get an overview of the projects and their progress is to look at the summary table of the report (pp 22-26).

I will be adding further detail on these projects, dividing the information into broad subject headings.

The monthly bulletin can be accessed by clicking on the link under the heading Newsletter at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hmcts-reform-programme.

The Reform Update report can be seen at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/744235/Reform_Update_issue_2_September_2018.pdf

The Inside HMCTS blog can be accessed at https://insidehmcts.blog.gov.uk/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reducing family conflict: reform of the legal requirements for divorce

leave a comment »

At present, divorce law requires people seeking divorce must show that there has been irretrievable breakdown in the marriage. To do this they must give evidence of one or more of 5 facts; 3 are based on ‘fault’  (adultery, unreasonable behaviour or desertion) and 2 are based on a period of separation (2 years’ separation where the other spouse consents to the divorce, or 5 years’ separation where the other spouse does not consent).

In practice, only about 2% of respondents contest the petitioner’s decision to seek a divorce. Of these 2% of respondents, only a handful go on to contest (“defend”) the divorce at a court hearing. This means that, under the current law, a spouse who wishes to divorce can already be certain of doing so in practice, regardless of the other spouse’s wishes, provided that the petition establishes irretrievable breakdown.

There are domestic abuse cases where the current grounds for divorce can be used in a coercive way.

Proposals detailed in the consultation include:

  • retaining the sole ground for divorce: the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage
  • removing the need to show evidence of the other spouse’s conduct, or a period of living apart
  • introducing a new notification process where one, or possibly both parties, can notify the court of the intention to divorce
  • removing the opportunity for the other spouse to contest the divorce application

The consultation also seeks views on the minimum timeframe for the process between the interim decree of divorce (decree nisi) and final decree of divorce (decree absolute) (currently 6 weeks, one day). This will allow couples time to reflect on the decision to divorce and to reach agreement on arrangements for the future where divorce is inevitable.

The Consultation runs until mid-December 2018.

The Paper can be accessed at https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/reform-of-the-legal-requirements-for-divorce/.

A detailed Press Release is at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/justice-secretary-confirms-plans-to-reduce-conflict-in-divorce

Although there has been considerable public response to these proposals, it can be anticipated that at the end of the consultation dissenting opinions will be heard. The paper has also been criticised for not addressing other issues arising from relationship breakdown, in particular affecting couples who have not married or engaged in a civil partnership.

 

 

 

Written by lwtmp

October 2, 2018 at 11:16 am

Disclosure of Evidence: Justice Committee report

leave a comment »

It is a fundamental principle of the criminal justice system in England and Wales that the prosecution must disclose unused evidence to the defence. Following considerable press publicity given to criminal trials  in which this principle has not been observed – leading to lengthy delays in a case being brough to trial, in some cases leading to a defendant being sent to prison for a crime he did not commit – the Justice Committee in the House of Commons took a look at the issue.

In July 2018 they published their report. In it they make no recommendations to change the law. Indeed, the confirm that the principle of disclosure is an important one to ensure a fair trial. What they do say is that those working in the criminal justice system must take their responsibilities in relation to disclosure more seriously.

The Committee notes that in early December 2017 the Government announced that the then Attorney General would conduct a review of disclosure. While the Attorney General has since changed, the Committee expects that this review will conclude.

The Committee also notes that the Crown Prosecution Service, National Police Chiefs’ Council and College of Policing  published a “National Disclosure Improvement Plan” in January 2018. (Noted in this blog 1 Feb 2018)

The Justice Committee’s recent report in effect builds on these initiatives. It states, in summary that there needs to be:

  • a shift in culture towards viewing disclosure as a core justice duty, and not an administrative add-on;
  • the right skills and technology to review large volumes of material that are now routinely collected by the police; and
  • clear guidelines on handling sensitive material.

Finally, the Government must consider whether funding across the system is sufficient to ensure a good disclosure regime. The Committee notes that delayed and collapsed trails that result from disclosure errors only serve to put further strain on already tight resources.

The Committee plans to return to this issue both when the Government publishes its response to the report, and when the Attorney General’s review is completed.

The report can be seen at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmjust/859/85902.htm

 

 

Written by lwtmp

October 2, 2018 at 10:48 am