Martin Partington: Spotlight on the Justice System

On Tuesday 16 November the Faculty of Laws at University College London launched a new Judicial Institute. The opening event  was a panel discussion on ‘The Future of Judging’. At a time when the judiciary is at an important crossroads, this event explored the changing roles of judges and the challenges facing the modern judiciary as a result of developments in politics and society, science and technology, law, litigation and globalisation.

This is an extremely important research initiative that should throw considerable light on a part of the legal system that has not hitherto been the subject of a great deal of empirical research.

The new Legal Ombudsman – a post created by  Office for Legal Complaints under provisions contained in the Legal Services Act 2007 – started work on 6 October 2010. It replaces a ‘system’ in which 8 different bodies had responsibility for handling complaints about lawyers. The first holder of the office is Adam Sampson. He has a staff of around 350 who investigate complaints received by his office.

For further information see http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/

The Coalition Government has developed the concept of the ‘structural reform’ plan as the key tool for making government departments accountable for the implementation of the reforms set out in the Coalition Agreement. They also set the context within which cuts to public expenditure are to be made. In the context of the English Legal System, those most relevant are those published by the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office.
The priorities of the Ministry of Justice are:
1.Reform of sentencing and penalties, ensuring that the justice system protects the public and reduces reoffending by introducing more effective sentencing policies and considering the use of restorative justice for adult and youth crimes
2.Rehabilitation revolution through the development of an offender management system that harnesses the innovation of the private and voluntary sectors, including options for using payment by results, to cut reoffending
3. Courts and legal aid with reform of the legal aid system to make it work more efficiently, whilst protecting the most vulnerable members of society; and developing court reforms to determine how disputes should be resolved, based on principles of transparency, decentralisation and accountability
4. Reform of the prison estate by reviewing the prison estate’s contribution to rehabilitation and reducing reoffending, developing a sustainable and cost-effective prison capacity strategy as part of the Spending Review
5. Civil liberties with a full programme of measures to reverse the erosion of civil liberties and to roll back state intrusion.
The Home Office’s plan also sets out its top five departmental priorities, which are to:
* enable the police and local communities to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour
* increase the accountability of the police to citizens
* secure our borders and control immigration
* protect people’s freedoms and civil liberties
* protect our citizens from terrorism.
Both of these plans were published on 13 July 2010

The Advisory Panel on Judicial Diversity published an important report in February 2010, which made 53 recommendations for improving the selection of those appointed to become judges. The Ministry of Justice Press release summarised the main points:

“The panel made 53 recommendations, finding that:

• the diversity of those entering the profession is significantly greater than that of those who have the experience to apply for judicial office. Therefore, delivering a more diverse judiciary is not just about recruiting talent wherever it may be found, but also about retaining talent and enabling capable individuals to reach the top.
• the Judicial Appointments Commission should revise its criteria for assessing merit, to support and underline with greater clarity its commitment to diversity.
• Selection processes should be open and transparent, promote diversity and recognise potential, not just at the entry points to the judiciary but for progression within it to the most senior levels.
• appraisal, owned and run by the judiciary, should be consistently implemented throughout the judiciary. This was particularly requested by women and black, Asian and minority ethnic judges.
• the Judicial Studies Board should evolve into a Judicial College offering courses in ‘Developing Judicial Skills’.
• the legal profession, including law firms, should actively promote judicial office amongst those who are currently not coming forward, and, together with the judiciary, support and encourage talented candidates from under-represented groups to apply.
• a proactive campaign of mythbusting should be undertaken as many of the perceived barriers to diversity are not reflected in practice.
• there should be no quotas or targets for recruiting under-represented groups. But improvements must be made to the way data is captured and shared, so that there can be systematic evaluation of what works and progress can be monitored against agreed benchmarks.”

The Panel also recommended the creation of a judicial diversity taskforce to oversee progress. The report can be found at http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/judicial-diversity-report.htm.

The idea of the Judicial Studies Board becoming a Judicial College is not in fact a new one. And in the context of its work with tribunals it has long offered instruction on ‘judgecraft’. Applying this to the rest of the judiciary is very welcome – and recognises that judging is a craft that can be taught – not an innate ability that some have and others do not.

Many lawyers offer legal advice free – ‘pro bono’.  One organisation, Lawworks, has been developing this idea and now offers a range of free legal services in different parts of the country. It has also been working with a number of law schools to develop student pro bono legal activity. You can get an idea of how they can help by looking at their website http://www.lawworks.org.uk/?id=students –