Martin Partington: Spotlight on the Justice System

Keeping the English Legal System under review

Archive for the ‘Chapter 8’ Category

Keeping the ‘Transformation: Courts and Tribunals 2022’ programme under review

leave a comment »

In June 2018, I noted here the critical report from the National Audit Office on the Transformation: Courts and Tribunals Programme 2022.

The NAO report was reviewed by the Public Accounts Committee , which took evidence from the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts and Tribunals Service. It published a pretty brutal report which listed a number of concerns about the programme and set out a number of recommendations on the way forward.

The PAC found, in summary:

  1. It had little confidence that HMCTS can successfully deliver this hugely ambitious programme to bring the court system into the modern age.
  2. It found that HMCTS had failed to articulate clearly what the transformed justice system would look like, which limits stakeholders’ ability to plan for, and influence the changes.
  3. Despite revising the timescale, it thought that HMCTS’s imperative to deliver at such a fast pace risked not allowing time for meaningful consultation or evaluation and could lead to unintended consequences.
  4. The Committee thought HMCTS had not adequately considered how the reforms will impact access to, and the fairness of, the justice system for the people using it, many of whom are vulnerable.
  5. It found that, one third of the way through the programme, the Ministry of Justice still did not understand the financial implications of its planned changes on the wider justice system.
  6. The Committee remained concerned that the Ministry of Justice was taking on significant amount of change, without a clear sense of its priorities, at a time when it is facing severe financial and demand pressures.

In relation to findings 1, 2 and 4 above, the Committee wanted HMCTS to start producing update reported on a regular 6 month basis, starting in January 2019.

In relation to finding 3, it wanted, by November 2018, HMCTS to publish plans on how and when it will engage with stakeholders and be clear about how it will act on the feedback received and adjust plans if necessary.

In relation to findings 5 and 6 it recommended regular updates from the Ministry of Justice, again starting in January 2019.

The Government has just announced that it has agreed to all the PACs recommendations.

As I said in my original comment on the report from the National Audit Office, my personal view is that it is essential that the justice system is modernised. Doing nothing is not an option. While stern criticism may well help to ensure that the Director of the reform programme keeps her eye on the ball, I also think that it is important to support those working on the reform programme. Such harsh criticism could be extremely undermining of staff confidence and could paradoxically increase the chances of some of the negative outcomes listed by the Committee coming to fruition.

I will keep readers of the blog posted as and when new material is published.

The NAO report is at https://www.nao.org.uk/report/early-progress-in-transforming-courts-and-tribunals/

The PAC report is at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubacc/976/97602.htm

The Government’s response is at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/746797/CCS001_CCS1018676736-001_Treasury_Minutes_Gov_Resp_43-58_Cm9702_Web_Accessible.pdf

.

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Transforming civil justice: current projects – progress reports

leave a comment »

In the civil jurisdiction, existing processes can be protracted, inefficient and costly. The Government’s aim is to create a system that enables people to manage and resolve a dispute fairly and speedily.

  • This will involve more mediation and fewer hearings.
  • It will involve simpler processes and online routes into and through the courts – providing good quality digital systems to support the civil system, which at present is very paper-heavy, and allowing the kind of digital working in civil courts that legal professionals and others have become used to in the criminal court.

Initial focus is on those proceedings that most often engage the civil courts, in particular the county court – money claims and possession claims. In addition there is an important infrastructural programme to enable the High Court to function more efficiently. In a little more detail:

1. Online Civil Money Claims:
This project started by developing a digital service that allows users to resolve civil money claims in a simple, accessible and proportionate way.
In August 2017, HMCTS launched a controlled test where users were invited to use
the new online service and by March 2018, 1,500 claimants issued claims within it. Over 80% of those users, including claimants and defendants, told us the service was very good and easy to use.
Further evidence suggests that the online system has improved access to justice, with engagement from defendants being higher than in the traditional civil money claims service.
HMTCS used feedback to keep improving the service, and opened it up to all users
on 26 March 2018. As well as allowing issue and defence of claim, the system allows without-prejudice offers to be made and accepted (and constructs agreements based on these offers and acceptances).
90% of users of the service since March have been satisfied or extremely satisfied with the new service.
The service is accessed at https://www.gov.uk/make-money-claim
A version of the system designed to support legal professionals who are managing multiple claims on behalf of their clients, is currently being tested with 10 firms. This should be  rolled out later in 2018.
Next steps will be to build further stages of the system, allowing more online negotiation
and settlement; upload of evidence; giving judges the facility to decide cases ‘on the digital papers’ but also to ask questions and seek clarification from parties; as well as providing the digital underpinnings for cases going to and through hearings.
2. Possession
The assured shorthold tenancy possession claim process will be made digital. As a first step, administrative processes will be improved, automated and streamlined to make them more efficient and reliable. The project will start formally in October 2018.
3. The Royal Courts of Justice
This project aims to deliver a digital case management system for the civil jurisdictions of the High Court and Court of Appeal, Upper Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Regional Business and Property Courts and District Registries.
As with the county court jurisdiction this will enable claims to be issued and responded to and cases managed by the court digitally. The project will also improve the hearing stage of the service by enabling evidence and e-bundles to be uploaded and shared
digitally and presented digitally at hearings. The project began in June 2018 and aims to deliver the new case management system to 2 of the jurisdictions this year.
A fourth project, on enforcement of judgements, has been put on hold.
This information has been derived and adapted from Reform Update Autumn 2018, published by HMCTS, and available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/744235/Reform_Update_issue_2_September_2018.pdf

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/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Employment Law Hearing Structures: Consultation from the Law Commission

leave a comment »

 

The headline features of the Transformation: Courts and Tribunals 2022 programme have been about major changes to the ways in which courts and tribunals work: on-line courts, digitization of process, investment in IT and so on.

But in parallel with these major changes, other more technical changes are being contemplated which it is hoped will improve the efficiency of the work of courts and tribunals.

The recently announced (26 September 2018) consultation paper Employment Law Hearing Structures is an example of how the government is seeking to take this opportunity to make some technical changes to the ways in which  courts and tribunals dealing with employment and discrimination cases interact.

For example:

  • At present Employment Tribunals can only claims for contractual damages, where the damages claimed are below £25,000;
  • Employment Tribunals operate on a ‘no-costs’ basis – i.e. the winner of the case cannot seek an order for costs from the losing party;
  • Employment Tribunals have no power to make an order to enforce a decision that it has made.
  • Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over no-employment discrimination cases

These and other rules mean that there can be circumstances in which cases have to go to courts that might be better dealt with by the tribunal, and vice versa.

The detail of the proposals in the Consultation Paper are not considered here, though of great importance to specialist employment lawyers and other interested in employment matters.

But the existence of the consultation is flagged here to indicate yet more ways in which the detailed work of courts and tribunals is likely to be amended under the general banner of the Transformation programme.

(A similar exercise, though not currently the subject of a public consultation, is ongoing in the context of the resolution of housing and property disputes where  complex boundaries have to be negotiated between tribunals and courts which mean that cases may need to be launched in more than one forum. There is likely to be greater public debate on these issues when the promised Consultation Paper on a new Housing Court is published later in 2018.)

The Law Commission’s Consultation Paper can be seen at https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/consultation-launched-into-how-employment-law-disputes-are-decided/

The Consultation runs till January 2019. Final recommendations will be published in 2019.

 

 

 

Written by lwtmp

September 27, 2018 at 12:21 pm

Suspension of the Transforming Compliance and Enforcement Programme (TCEP).

leave a comment »

What is the point of going to court if, having obtained a judgement in your favour, you cannot get it enforced? This has long been recognised as a problem for the Civil Justice system.

Reforms to the relevant law were introduced in April 2014.

In this blog in June 2018 I noted the publication of a review of how the new rules relating to the enforcement of judgements were operating, based on the first full year of their operation. Reform of the legal basis of enforcement was an important part of the Transforming Compliance and Enforcement Programme, which was itself an important adjunct (though separately funded) of the Transforming our Justice System programme.

The aim of TCEP was that, through better investment in IT, enforcement would be able to be carried out more quickly and efficiently.

The Government has now announced that the TCEP is to be put on hold – the Ministry of Justice just does not have enough money to take the programme forward. While changes that have been made will continue to be implemented, further change and investment must wait.

This will be very disappointing news for those who would like to see significant improvement in enforcement work.

The announcement, made on 6 September 2018, is at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/compliance-and-enforcement-work-to-continue-unchanged

 

 

 

 

 

 

Written by lwtmp

September 6, 2018 at 3:38 pm

Enforcement of judgments

leave a comment »

One of the challenges for the civil justice system is knowing how to enforce judgments made by the courts that money should be paid by the losing party to the winner. At the heart of this issue is the problem of whether someone cannot pay (because they just do not have the resources) or won’t pay (because they won’t).

The rules relating to enforcement agents working for both the High Court and County Court were amended with effect from April 2014, and a review of the first year of operation of the new rules was started a year later in 2015. The results of that review were published in April 2018.

The results of the review are not in themselves particularly startling though there are indications that the new rules are beginning to have some impact, both in relation to the behaviour of enforcement agents, and in encouraging people to come to an agreement before their possessions are actually seized for sale (the usual objective of enforcement action in civil cases).

This is very much work in progress. Indeed, a significant component of the big Transformation Programme is the Transforming Compliance and Enforcement Programme (TCEP) which is upgrading systems in HMCTS’s National Compliance and Enforcement Service, used to enforce court orders such as penalties and compensation. If this works, this will have impact across the whole of the justice system, not just civil justice, as it will also deal with fines and compensation orders made in criminal courts.

For the one year review, see https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/695833/one-year-review-bailiff-reform-web.pdf

Written by lwtmp

June 8, 2018 at 10:32 am

Transforming the Justice system – views from the National Audit Office

leave a comment »

In this blog, I have tried to keep readers abreast of developments with the major Transformation of the Justice system programme. I have observed that this is not always easy and depends on keeping an eye out for press releases, blogs and now the new monthly e-bulletin issued by HM Courts and Tribunals Service.

In May 2018, the National Audit Office (NAO) published its first appraisal of how the programme is going.

Obviously the NAO is supportive of the aims of the programme, which it summarises as follows:

In 2016, HMCTS set up a portfolio of change programmes that will introduce

new technology and working practices to modernise and upgrade the justice system.

By March 2023, HMCTS expects to employ 5,000 fewer staff, reduce the number of
cases held in physical courtrooms by 2.4 million cases per year and reduce annual
spending by £265 million. Savings will come from lower administrative and judicial staff costs, fewer physical hearings and running a smaller estate. As well as making savings HMCTS expects the reformed system to work better for all those involved, use court time more proportionately, and make processes more accessible to users.

The NAO report helpfully reminds readers of the scale and scope of the overall programme:

The HMCTS change portfolio consists of several related programmes, which in turn
are made up of many individual projects. The major programmes are:
• The HMCTS Reform Programme which is modernising processes and systems
to reduce demand on courts by moving activity out of courtrooms. For example,
it will introduce online services and digital case files and expand the use of video
technology in hearings.
• The Common Platform Programme which is developing shared processes
and a digital criminal justice case management system to share information
between HMCTS, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. It is jointly
managed by these organisations.
• The Transforming Compliance and Enforcement Programme (TCEP) which
is upgrading systems in HMCTS’s National Compliance and Enforcement Service,
used to enforce court orders such as penalties and compensation.
As part of these programmes, HMCTS is also reducing and modernising the
court and tribunal estate and creating cross-jurisdictional hearing centres and national ‘customer service centres’. These will centralise case management and administration and provide support to the public, judges and lawyers on civil and criminal matters.
The NAO makes some rather obvious observations:

1 The scope of the programme is challenging

2 The timetable has been expanded

3 The scope of some projects has been reduced

4 Progress has been slower than expected

5 Costs have risen and likely benefits decreased

6 There remain funding gaps for the later stages.

The NAO notes that many of these points have been taken on board within HMCTS. Nonetheless, the NAO argues that more should be done to demonstrate in detail how the reformed system will work. It states that it is important to sustain the committment of all those involved in the design and delivery of the new service. It implicitly criticises the Ministry of Justice for its failure to reintroduce the legislation that will be needed to ensure that aspects of the reform programme can be implemented. The NAO warns that the scale and spped of change may result in changes having unexpected consequences. And as much of the anticipated savings arise from reductions in staff, this could actually lead to an inability to deliver the service.

The public response of HMCTS has been upbeat – as indeed it has to be. A Press Release acknowledges that the programme is challenging; it summarises a number of specific changes that have been delivered; and remains confident that the programme will be successfully delivered.

My own view is that it is very important that the transformation programme is delivered. But the managerial challenge of delivering a large scale change should not be underestimated. To date, key judicial figures have been working with HMCTS to promote the need for and advantages of change. Continued judicial leadership will be essential. But I think it would be wise to develop a wider group of ‘change champions’, particularly within the judiciary more broadly and from  the legal professions. Many practitioners will accept that the current system does not serve the public well. Many will have good ideas for how things could be done more efficiently and to greater public benefit. Giving them the encouragement to voice their support for change would be highly desirable.

The NAO report is at https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Early-progess-in-transforming-courts-and-tribunals.pdf.

The HMTCS Press release is at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hmcts-response-to-national-audit-office-report-on-court-reform-programme?utm_medium=email&utm_source=