Martin Partington: Spotlight on the Justice System

The Government has just announced the appointment of an Independent Commission to examine the case for the adoption of a UK Bill of Rights – which would effectively replace the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Human Rights legislation, and the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the scope Convention rights, have been getting a hostile press and comment in Parliament recently. Two issues have hit the headlines: the question of whether prisoners should in some circumstances have the right to vote, and whether those registered on the sex offenders list should ever have the right to challenge a decision that they be on the list. Debate on both these issues seems to have been characterised by a fair degree of ignorance about what the Court was actually ruling. Their judgments were no way as apocalyptic as their critics were claiming. (By contrast, their judgements on the ability of local authority and social housing providers effectively to manage their estates – which are likely to have considerable financial implications for social landlords – have hardly been considered at all.)

In this context, the establishment of the Commission – with the clear instruction to build on the current position, rather than row back from it – is an important development. They will not report until end 2012, but I will keep an eye on developments here.

The terms of reference of the Commission are:

To investigate the creation of a UK Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in UK law, and protects and extend our liberties.

To examine the operation and implementation of these obligations, and consider ways to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties.

To provide advice to the Government on the ongoing Interlaken process  (a separate process being run within the Council of Europe) to reform the Strasbourg court ahead of and following the UK’s Chairmanship of the Council of Europe.

To consult, including with the public, judiciary and devolved administrations and legislatures, and aim to report no later than by the end of 2012.

The members of the Commission can be found at
http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease180311a.htm

In the book I make the rather throwaway remark that I could not imagine a programme being aired on British TV similar to the programme on US tv about their Supreme Court. How wrong I was! Within the last two weeks there have been two really good programmes on the new (UK) Supreme Court.
The first, on BBC, is regrettably no longer available on the BBC i-player service.
The second, and in my view better film, aired by More 4 is still available (at least in the UK) on More 4.
I very much hope that, in due course, they will both become available on a more permanent basis, as they are a really important source of information not readily available to the public.
The More 4 programme is available at http://www.channel4.com/programmes/britains-supreme-court/4od#3161268.

The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which is designed to enable a referendum on Alternative Voting to be held in May 2011 – and to reduce the number of seats in the House of Commons from 650 to 600 – has been held up in the House of Lords for the last few weeks. It looks as though a deal has been done to enable the Committee Stage of the Bill to be completed by 2 February, which it turn opens the way for the Bill to be passed by the middle of February – essential if the referendum is to be held in May.
However, Labour peers continue to hint that there may still be further delays. My own guess is that it will get through – but watch this space!

Slowly the shape of the reforms to the justice system that will be introduced over the life of the Coalition Government are beginning to emerge. On 8 November, the Ministry of Justice published its first business plan. The principles it contains are:

“1. Introduce a rehabilitation revolution by  creating a system introducing greater involvement of the private and voluntary sectors in the rehabilitation of offenders, including use of payment by results, to cut reoffending

2. Reform sentencing and penalties to ensure that the justice system reduces reoffending by introducing more effective sentencing policies and considering the use of restorative justice for adult and youth crimes

3. Reform courts, tribunals and legal aid, and work with others to reform delivery of criminal justice. This includes reforming the legal aid system to make it work more efficiently, while ensuring that government provides necessary support for those who need it most and for those cases that require it. Develop court reforms to improve the resolution of disputes, maximise efficiency and improve services and work with others to make delivery of criminal justice more effective and efficient

4. Assure better law by making law-making  transparent and accountable, safeguarding civil liberties and enabling citizens to receive the proper protection of the law

5. Reform how we deliver our services by reassessing the Department’s ways of working to develop more efficient shared services, matching provision ever more closely to demand, reducing duplication and streamlining functions wherever possible.

The Department will no longer  provide rehabilitation services directly without testing where voluntary or private sectors can provide it more effectively and efficiently nor run underutilised and inefficient court buildings.”

There is more detail in the accompanying document (see link below). What is immediately striking is, first, that the timetable for many of these important developments is already slipping – a number of tasks due for completion by the end of October are still awaited.

Secondly, the programme is very aspirational. Re-offending will not fall just because government wants to see it fall. There must be doubts about whether the investment in resources to prevent re-offending will be available.

Third, cuts in legal aid will be a real challenge if those who need help are to get it.

Fourth, increased use of ADR is unlikely without compulsion, something the ADR community has resisted till now.

However, as with the targets set by the previous Government, there is a statement of outcomes which can be reviewed as time passes. There is certainly a very challenging programme of work implied in the plan which – if all implemented – will reflect great determination by both Ministers and officials.  One of the biggest challenges will be to ensure that cross government issues are properly and efficiently addressed.

I will keep you up-to-date!

The details are available at

http://www.justice.gov.uk/business-plan-2011-15.htm

The Queen’s Speech – outlining the priorities of the new Government – does not contain much that relates directly to the issues considered in Introduction to the English Legal System. However, the economic constraints which are going to be imposed by the Government will clearly impact on the legal system. The resources available for the courts, legal aid, administrative justice etc will all be under considerable scrutiny. The pressure to do things more cheaply will be overwhelming.
In the list of Bills announced: The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill may change the ways in which the police are organised; the Freedom (Great Repeal) Bill may impact on issues relating to criminal justice; the Parliamentary Reform Bill may lead to changes in parliamentary and election procedures. The Queen’s Speech also mentions other work that the Government intends to take forward, including House of Lords reform, and the funding of political parties.
These issues will be considered further here, as more details become available. For more information about the Queen’s Speech, see: http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/latest-news/2010/05/queens-speech-2010-3-50297

This Act completed its Parliamentary process in the final days before the General Election 2010 campaign started. The final Act was rather different in content from the Bill (see Box 3.2). While the Bill was before Parliament, a number of additions to it were made.

These included:

1. provisions on the nationality requirements  for civil servants
2. provision for a referendum on the voting  system
3. amendments to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009
4. provisions  on the tax status of MPs and Members of the House of Lords
5. a  repeal of part of the Act of Settlement to allow non-British National  peers to take their seats in the House of Lords
6. a requirement  for returning officers to take reasonable steps to begin counting votes  given on ballot papers within four hours of the close of a poll

However,  during the final stages, the following were removed from the Bill:

• provisions  on the nationality requirements of civil servants
• the provision  for a referendum on the voting system
• provisions for the end of  the by-elections for hereditary peers
• the provisions allowing  for suspension, resignation and expulsion of Members of the Lords
• the  provisions on demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament
• the  provisions on human rights claims against devolved administrations
• provisions  about courts and tribunals
• provisions on National Audit

In short the most controversial issues were left for discussion another time. The extent to which the matters dropped will be brought back will clearly depend on the Government’s priorities after the General Election

It is very hard to get any understanding of what the Lisbon treaty seeks to do from reading or listening to reports in the UK media.

There is a useful website which gives more information in a relatively digestible form at  http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/glance/index_en.htm.

Before you make up you mind whether the changes effected by the Lisbon Treaty are good or bad, it is worth finding out what the Treaty actually says.