Posts Tagged ‘criminal justice reform’
Impact of Covid-19 on the criminal justice system: the view of the Criminal Justice Inspectorates
There are 4 Inspectorates which have statutory power to keep different parts of the criminal justice system under review: prosecution, police, prisons, and probation. Covid-19 has impacted all aspects of the system.
While the inspectorates have on many occasions worked with each other (on some occasions with other agencies outside the criminal justice system), it is rare for all 4 of the criminal justice inspectorates to come together to write a joint report on a single issue. The impact of Covid-19 on the criminal justice system has been the trigger for their latest report, Impact of the pandemic on the criminal justice system, which was published on 19 January 2021.
As the press release to the report makes clear, each of the Inspectorates has been examining the impact of Covid-19 on their individual parts of the system. They have already published or will soon be publishing their own individual resports on the impact of the virus.
But the Chief Inspectors are obviously extremely concerned about the enormous stresses being placed throughout the criminal justice system – not all deriving from the pandemic, but to which the pandemic has added new dimensions.
In their joint report, the Chief Inspectors draw together common issues which are discussed in each of their studies. They spell out how the Covid-19 pandemic has affected the work of the police, prosecutors, prisons, probation and youth offending teams. They point to difficulties and lengthy waits at all stages of the criminal justice process observing that delays “benefit no one and risk damage to many”.
While the Chief Inspectors were able to praise some positive initiatives that had been taken during the Covid-19 pandemic, including the acceleration of digital working, and the commitment of staff, other areas were of more concern. They included the lack of education provision in custody and in the community for young people and the highly restrictive regimes imposed on a majority of prisoners which have continued for many months without respite, impacting negatively on their physical, emotional and psychological wellbeing and also more generally on prospects for effective rehabilitation.
In the Chief Inspectors’ view, the greatest risk to criminal justice comes from the “unprecedented and very serious” backlogs in courts. The number of ongoing cases in Crown Courts was 44 per cent higher in December 2020 compared to February of the same year. Latest figures show more than 53,000 cases are waiting to come before Crown Courts. Some of these cases have been scheduled for 2022. Despite additional funding, the continuing impact of Covid-19 is likely cause further delays.
A particular source of frustration are cases which have been listed for trial but are then cancelled and postponed, all adding to the stress of victims as well as of the accused.
The Joint Report has been used as the basis for a meeting with the Justice Select Committee which is very concerned about the impact of Covid-19 on the Justice system and indeed reported on the issue in October 2020.
The evidence in this report clearly demonstrates the potential importance of the proposed Royal Commission on the Criminal Justice system. The delay in establishing this, which I have criticised before, is a real source of frustration for all those who want to see major improvements in the operation and effectiveness of the Criminal Justice system.
Details of the Joint Report can be found at https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/cjji/inspections/impact-of-the-pandemic-on-the-criminal-justice-system/
The evidence of the Chief Inspectors to the Justice Committee is at https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/102/justice-committee/news/138547/committee-gets-early-sight-of-criminal-justice-system-report/
Independent Review of Criminal Legal Aid – announcement
Just before Christmas, the Government made the long awaited announcement that the independent review of Criminal Legal Aid would start work in January 2021 – with a view to reporting by the end of 2021. The Chair of the Inquiry is to be Sir Christoher Bellamy, a retired judge – formerly President of the Competititon Appeal Trbunal. He will be supported by an Expert Panel, though the composition of the Panel has not yet been announced
The announcement contains a link to the terms of reference for the inquiry which set out in rather more detail than usual the aims of the inquiry and some of the issues it is required to take into account. The document states that the Criminal Legal Aid Review ‘has two main objectives’:
- To reform the Criminal Legal Aid fee schemes so that they:
• fairly reflect, and pay for, work done.
• support the sustainability of the market, including recruitment, retention, and career progression within the professions and a diverse workforce.
• support just, efficient, and effective case progression; limit perverse incentives, and ensure value for money for the taxpayer.
• are consistent with and, where appropriate, enable wider reforms.
• are simple and place proportionate administrative burdens on providers, the Legal Aid Agency (LAA), and other government departments and agencies; and
• ensure cases are dealt with by practitioners with the right skills and experience. - To reform the wider Criminal Legal Aid market to ensure that the provider market:
• responds flexibly to changes in the wider system, pursues working practices and structures that drive efficient and effective case progression, and delivers value for money for the taxpayer.
• operates to ensure that Legal Aid services are delivered by practitioners with the right skills and experience.
• operates to ensure the right level of Legal Aid provision and to encourage a diverse workforce.
The document also states that ‘ultimate objective of the Criminal Legal Aid System is to provide legal advice and representation to those who most need it’ and that in order to achieve this overarching objective,
“the Independent Review will seek to make recommendations that will ensure the Criminal Legal Aid System:
a. provides high quality legal advice and representation;
b. is provided through a diverse set of practitioners;
c. is appropriately funded;
d. is responsive to user needs both now and in the future;
e. contributes to the efficiency and effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System;
f. is transparent;
g. is resilient; and
h. is delivered in a way that provides value for money to the taxpayer.”
Furthermore “in order to conduct this analysis, the review will consider the following themes:
- resilience
- transparency
- competition,
- efficiency; and
- diversity.
For criminal legal aid practitioners this is a very important moment. It is clear that the current criminal legal aid is not working as it should. The question remains whether, despite the generally positive tone of the initial press release, a substantially reformed system will ultimately be implemented. This will be an important test for both Government and the legal professions. Much will depend on the political skills of the Lord Chancellor in ensuring that the resources to reform the system are available.
The announcement is at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/independent-review-into-criminal-legal-aid-to-launch-in-january. This includes the link to the terms of reference.
Covid-19 and the English Legal System (15) – Criminal Justice in existential crisis?
On Friday 30 October 2020 a research consultancy, Crest, published a report Impact and legacy of Covid-19 on the CJS: Modelling overview. Using existing data to model future developments, the report set out what it regarded as the possible impact of Covid-19 on the Criminal Justice System.
The rather sober title of the report was not matched by the press release Crest drafted to draw attention to its study. This was headed “A perfect storm: why the criminal justice system is facing an existential crisis”. This apocalytic vision certainly caught the eye of some journalists – which is of course the reason why I am now writing about it now.
And the report is a really important one, which underscores the urgent need for the Government to get on with the appointment and work of the promised Royal Commission on the Criminal Justice system. (See https://martinpartington.com/2020/07/13/royal-commission-on-the-criminal-justice-system-details-awaited/)
The report starts by reminding readers that, even before Covid-19, the CJS was facing a number of long-standing problems: decreasing charge rates, worsening court timeliness and an estimated backlog in the courts of c.104K
cases, prisons and probation operating at full capacity. Covid-19 has added to those pressures. The report also predicts a future of increased pressure, the consequence of the likely rise in long term unemployment due to the economic impact of Covid, leading to more crime, and the 20,000 increase in police officer numbers, leading to more detection and the need to process more people through the system.
The research team’s modelling suggests, that without any action, the Crown Court backlog is projected to increase from c.45.5K in 2019 in to c.195.5K (x4) in 2024. and the magistrates’ court backlog is projected to increase from c.58.6K in 2019 to 580.3K (x10) in 2024.
Current responses by Government – e.g. making more courts covid-safe and opening Nightingale Courts in a number of town – just do not cut the mustard, in Crest’s view. Much more dramatic action is needed.
The principal criticism contained in the report is that there is currently no ‘whole-system’ view of the challenges facing the CJS. Different parts of the system work in isolation from other parts.
For example: the 20K police uplift will lead to a rise in pressure on the court backlogs; if the courts increase their outflow in sentenced cases, there will be a rise in pressure on prisons and probation.
Furthermore, assuming equilibrium is achieved in courts, suspended sentence orders are projected to increase by 24%, post-release supervision caseload will increase by 30% and community sentence orders are projected to increase by 14% by 2024. This will put extreme pressure on a probation service which was already underperforming.
There is, in the report’s view, inadequate recognition within Government of the interdependencies of each part of the criminal justice system.
The Crest report states that
“to bring the backlog back to pre-Covid levels will require a change in more than just capacity.
Options include:
● increasing the speed with which cases are dealt with: e.g. increasing the efficiency of listing, decreasing victim attrition, decreasing cracked trials etc.
● decreasing the amount of cases entering the court system by increasing effective out of court disposals
● decreasing the amount of police recorded crime originally entering the CJS through effective crime prevention programmes.”
I think some would argue that this list of options is not an original one. All these ideas have been discussed within the CJS, and achieving the outcomes suggested in the report is not easy. But what this report has very effectively done is highlight precisely the challenges that the now increasingly delayed Royal Commission must address. It should be a matter of urgency for the Government to get the Commission up and running.
The Crest Report is available at https://www.crestadvisory.com/post/covid-19-and-the-criminal-justice-system
Jury trials – a case for change?
One response to the difficulties of running jury trials in the current Covid-19 world, where social distancing is crucial yet difficult to achieve in a crowded courtroom, has been that – at least temporarily – alternatives to juries should be tried.
The Lord Chancellor has set his face against this idea. Indeed, most people who even float the idea that jury trials should be abolished tend to be treated with scorn.
Nevertheless, it is worth noting that there is the occasional voice to be heard, suggesting that jury trial is not all that it is cracked up to be.
In this context, readers of this blog might be interested in a book, published in 2019, by the late Louis Blom-Cooper QC who suggested that criminal trials might be run differently.
In Unreasoned Verdict, Blom-Cooper argues that:
The system of jury trial has survived, intact, for 750 years. This book explains the nature and scope today of jury trial, with its minor exceptions. It chronicles the origins and development of jury trial in the Anglo-Saxon world, seeking to explain and explore the principles that lie at the heart of the mode of criminal trial. It observes the distinction between the professional judge and the amateur juror or lay participant, and the value of such a mixed tribunal. Part of the book is devoted to the leading European jurisdictions, underlining their abandonment of trial by jury and its replacement with the mixed tribunal in pursuance of a political will to inject a lay element into the trial process. Democracy is not an essential element in the criminal trial.
The book also takes a look at the appellate system in crime, from the Criminal Appeals Act 1907 to the present day, and urges the reform of the appellate court, finding the trial decision unsatisfactory as well as unsafe.
Other important issues are touched upon – judicial ethics and court-craft; perverse jury verdicts (the nullification of jury verdicts); the speciality of fraud offences, and the selection of models for various crimes, as well as suggested reforms of the waiver of a jury trial or the ability of the defendant to choose the mode of trial. The section ends with a discussion of the restricted exceptions to jury trial, where the experience of 30 years of judge-alone trials in Northern Ireland – the Diplock Courts – is discussed.
Finally, the book proffers its proposal for a major change in direction – involvement of the defendant in the choice of mode of trial, and the intervention (where necessary) of the expert, not merely as a witness but as an assessor to the judiciary or as a supplemental decision-maker.
I think it highly unlikely that there will be any change in the foreseeable future. But that does not mean that arguments against the ways in which juries are currently used should not at least be considered and debated to see whether there might be alternative arrangements that might work better and more fairly.Source: adapted from publisher’s notice at https://www.bloomsburyprofessional.com/uk/unreasoned-verdict-9781509915224/
Royal Commission on the Criminal Justice system – details awaited
In the Queen’s Speech, delivered in December 2019, it was announced that the Government would establish a Royal Commission to review and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice process. Little has been heard of this proposal since then. However, in recent meetings with the House of Commons Justice Committee, the Lord Chancellor made it clear that he has been given the resources needed to enable the establishment of the Commission.
At present – and no doubt reflecting other more pressing priorities driven by Covid 19 – no further information is available. It is, however, likely to be a broad-ranging inquiry, not only limited to the operation of the courts, but taking other aspects of the criminal justice system into account as well.
A separate consultation on the Criminal Legal Aid scheme closed in June 2020. The results of that inquiry are likely to be published towards the end of 2020. A number of interim changes to the criminal legal aid scheme were announced in February 2020.
For the Queen’s Speech, December 2019, see https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/queens-speech-december-2019
The announcement of the consultation on Criminal Legal aid is at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/criminal-legal-aid-review
Reaction of the Law Society is at https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/en/topics/criminal-justice/criminal-legal-aid
Transformation: Court and Tribunals 2022 – progress reports
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/
Efficiency in the Criminal Justice System: the view of the National Audit Office
In March 2016, the National Audit Office published a very interesting and pretty hard hitting report on efficiency in the Criminal Justice system – or rather inefficiency. Set against the programme for the Transformation of our Justice System that was announced by the Government in the summer 2016, the contents of the NAO need to be remembered. In essence it argues that the current reform programme will not be adequate to drive out inefficiency, and ensure better value for money.
I set out here an edited version of the Summary Chapter of the report which gives the headline issues that need to be dealt with.
Key findings of the National Audit Office:
1 Performance
- Delays are getting worse against a backdrop of continuing financial pressure.
- There have been some improvements in the management of cases since 2010-11. But two-thirds of cases still do not progress as planned, creating unnecessary costs.
- Trials that collapse or are delayed create costs for all the participants, including the CPS, witnesses and HMCTS. (In 2014-15, the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) funded defence counsel to the tune of £93.3 million for cases that were not heard in court).
- Delays and collapsed trials also damage the public’s confidence in the system.
Giving evidence in court as a witness or victim can be a difficult and stressful process. The uncertainty caused by delays and collapsed trials exacerbates this.
2. Addressing the causes of inefficiency
The Ministry and CPS are leading an ambitious reform programme but this will not address all the causes of inefficiency.
- The court reform programme’s scope is far-reaching. It includes rationalising and modernising the estate to enable more efficient digital working and the roll-out of a single digital case management system accessible by all parties. Better IT infrastructure and a modernised estate would provide the tools for a more efficient, less paper-based system, but are not sufficient to address all the causes of inefficiency in the system.
- Inefficiencies are created where individuals and organisations do not get things right first time, and problems are compounded because mistakes often occur early in the life of a case and are not corrected.
- There can be multiple points of failure as cases progress through the system but these are often not identified until it is too late. (A 2015 inspection found that 18.2% of police charging decisions were incorrect. Incorrect charging decisions should be picked up by the CPS before court, but 38.4% of cases were not reviewed before reaching court. The system’s reliance on paper also builds in inefficiency).
- The system as a whole is inefficient because its individual parts have strong incentives to work in ways that create cost elsewhere.
- As there is no common view of what success looks like, organisations may not act in the best interests of the whole system. (For example, courts staff seek, under judicial direction, to ensure they are in use as much as possible by scheduling more trials than can be heard so that there are back-ups when one trial cannot proceed. This is both a cause and a result of the inefficiencies in the system, and leads to costs for other parts of the system, for example witnesses who spend a day waiting to give evidence for a trial that is not then heard, and who may then be more likely to disengage from the process).
- There is significant regional variation in the performance of the system, suggesting that there is scope for efficiency gains. (A victim of crime in North Wales has a 7 in 10 chance that the trial will go ahead at Crown Court on the day it is scheduled, whereas in Greater Manchester the figure is only 2 in 10. The large variation in performance across the country means that victims and witnesses will experience very different levels of service.)
- If the performance in those Local Criminal Justice Board areas with the highest rate of cracked trials was equivalent to the best-performing quartile, 15% more cases would proceed as planned, saving a minimum of £4 million in CPS costs, as well as those costs incurred by other organisations.
- There are some mechanisms to identify and share good practice, but awareness and use of these varies. Our case study visits identified a range of innovative approaches that made a positive impact on the system. These included implementing an appointment system for the approval of search warrants, which saved a significant amount of police time, and creating a dedicated videoconferencing court. But there is varied awareness and use of mechanisms to identify and disseminate learning from these initiatives.
3 Conclusion on value for money
- Reducing inefficiency in the justice system is essential if the increasing demand and reducing funding are not to lead to slower, less accessible justice. Although the bodies involved have improved the management of cases, around two-thirds of criminal trials still do not proceed as planned on the day they are originally scheduled. Delays and aborted hearings create extra work, waste scarce resources and undermine confidence in the system.
- Notwithstanding the challenges of improving the efficiency of a system designed to maintain independence of the constituent parts, there are many areas where improvements must be made. Large parts of the system are paper-based and parties are not always doing what they are supposed to do in a timely manner.
- The system is not currently delivering value for money.
- The ambitious reforms led by the Ministry, HMCTS, CPS and judiciary are designed to tackle many of these issues by reducing reliance on paper records and enabling more flexible digital working. They have the potential to improve value for money but will not address all of the causes of inefficiency.
- More also needs to be done to explore and address the wide regional variations in performance, and to create incentives that encourage all parties to operate in the best interests of the system as a whole.
Recommendations
a The Criminal Justice Board should agree what ‘good’ looks like for the system as a whole, and the levels of performance that each part of the system can commit to deliver to achieve this. It should report publicly on whether these levels of performance are being met. While it is important that the different parts of the system are not able to unduly influence individual cases, this cannot preclude agreement over the level of service that each element of the system should provide. Whenever possible, these measures should focus on quality and align with the system’s overarching aims.
b The Criminal Justice Board should regularly review performance at a level sufficient to identify good practice. Unlike many other areas of government, there is granular performance data available for many aspects of the system. Identifying and exploring regional variations in performance will highlight innovative practice, as well as giving organisations across the system incentives to improve.
c The Criminal Justice Board should establish mechanisms to increase transparency and encourage feedback through the system. This is particularly important where one element of the system has a direct but discretionary impact on another. (For example, when magistrates’ courts refer ‘either way’ cases to Crown Court they should be able to find out how many of these cases were ultimately sentenced within magistrates’ court powers. This would allow them to judge whether they are sending the right cases.)
Note. The Criminal Justice Board, is a cross-governmental group chaired by the Justice Secretary. It includes ministers and officials from the Ministry of Justice (the Ministry), its executive agency HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS), the Home Office, the Attorney General’s Office and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). It also includes representatives of police forces, police and crime commissioners and senior members of the judiciary.
Source: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Efficiency-in-the-criminal-justice-system.pdf
Prison Reform
One reason to regret the departure of Michael Gove MP as Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor – following the outcome of the Brexit referendum – was that he did not have the chance to follow through his ideas to improve the rehabilitation functions of prisons. His successor, Liz Truss MP, has taken up the mantle of prison reform. Following the announcement in the Queen’s Speech that there would be a Prisons Bill, the Government in November 2016 published a White Paper setting out in some more detail its proposals.
They include, and have been summarised in the Press Release:
Safe and secure prisons:
- Creating a new network of ‘no-fly’ zones to block drones flying dangerous illicit items into the prison estate, the fitting out of prisons with cutting edge technology to block illegal mobile phones; and testing offenders for drugs on entry and exit from prison;
Raising standards:
- Rating prisons on their ability to run safe and decent regimes which reform offenders, cut crime, and keep streets safe – showing which prisons are making real progress in getting prisoners off drugs and into education and employment
- Enshrining in law what the public and Parliament can expect prisons to deliver– making sure prisons operate under a rigorous system of accountability, scrutiny and support, and holding the Secretary of State to account for their performance;
Empowering governors:
- Giving every single governor greater authority to run their prison the way they think best – moving power from the centre and into the hands of hard-working, trusted staff to deliver lasting improvements and equip offenders with the tools to lead a better life on release.
Stronger accountability and scrutiny:
-
Overhauling accountability and giving greater bite to the inspection regime so action is taken swiftly – and seriously – where prisons are failing in their duties – including a new emergency trigger for the Justice Secretary to take direct action, with sanctions including the issuing of formal improvement plans to ultimately replacing the leadership of the prison
These measures, which will require legislation, will be supplemented by a major programme of prison building, closing old prisons and replacing them with modern buildings.
In the view of many, the chances of success in reducing reoffending rates (which currently run at about 50%) will only be achieved if the prison population is reduced, so that the education, that Michael Gove was so keen to promote, can actually be provided. Indeed, the Lord Chief Justice, in evidence to the Justice Select Committee in November 2016, argued (as other senior judges have done before him) that more could be done by making community sentences more onerous, and keeping prisons for the most serious offenders.
The Prison Reform White Paper , Prison Safety and Reform, may be read at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/565014/cm-9350-prison-safety-and-reform-_web_.pdf
Transforming the English Legal System: Criminal Justice
i. Aligning the criminal courts: Magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court deal withdifferent levels of criminal offence, but they must work better together to provide amore efficient service. We are working with the judiciary on structural andprocedural changes that will give the senior judiciary clearer oversight of, andflexibility to manage, judicial leadership in the criminal jurisdiction. This will enablethe Crown Court and magistrates’ courts to operate more closely together –stronger leadership and alignment will improve court performance for everyoneinvolved. To support this, we will bring the structures of the courts closer byreforming existing local justice areas and making it easier to transfer cases betweenthe Crown Court and Magistrates’ Court when appropriate – starting in the rightplace will make the process simpler and easier for victims and defendants.ii. Making it easier for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses (including victims) to giveevidence: We will roll out the use of pre-trial cross-examination in Crown Courttrials, allowing vulnerable and intimidated witnesses to pre-record their cross-examination, meaning the witness does not always need to attend the trial itself. Apilot found that this procedure meant witnesses gave evidence in half the time itwould take at trial. We believe that expanding this will reduce distress for victimsand witnesses and improve their overall experience of the justice system.
i.Introducing problem solving courts: We are exploring the opportunities for problemsolving methods further with the judiciary and collecting the evidence base. We arecontinuing to trial this approach in locations across the UK.ii. Using out of court disposals: We will use out of court disposals in appropriate cases,to help change offenders’ behaviour at the earliest possible opportunity– with swiftand certain consequences for offenders who do not comply with the conditionsattached.
i. Streamlining process: We are making changes to the way cases progress throughthe criminal courts, including removing unnecessary appearances in court (such asfirst appearances in magistrates’ courts for cases which can only be tried in theCrown Court), introducing a more efficient process to allocate cases to the CrownCourt or magistrates’ courts and allowing simple decisions to be made via a newonline system.ii. Using technology to make processes more efficient: We will increase the use
of video link and telephone and video conferencing technology to makehearings easier and more convenient for all, including victims and witnessesand criminal justice system agencies. We will work with the police to hold bailhearings by video link from police stations to reduce the need for someoffenders to be held in police cells overnight. In appropriate cases offenderswill be able to plead guilty, be convicted and sentenced all on the same day bylive video link from police stations.iii. Introducing a new collaborative IT system: The Common Platform is alreadybeing developed to provide a single case management IT system for usethroughout the Crown Court and magistrates’ courts. It will provide access tocase material and information to many agencies within the criminal justicesystem as well as the defence, victims and witnesses. Many current paper andcourt-based processes will be moved online, saving time and increasingefficiency for all court users.iv. Enabling online convictions and fixed fines: For certain routine, low-levelsummary, non-imprisonable offences with no identifiable victim, we propose tointroduce a system which resolves cases entirely online. Defendants would logon to an online system to see the evidence against them before entering aplea. If they plead guilty, they can opt in to (and can always opt out of) theonline system which allows them to view the penalty, accept the convictionand penalty, and pay their fine. Cases would be resolved immediately andentirely online, without the involvement of a magistrate.
Many of these proposals build on initiatives already started. However, the suggestion for more problem solving courts is potentially quite innovative and could lead to significant change to the ways in which the criminal courts have historically operated.
See chapter 2: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-our-courts-and-tribunals/supporting_documents/consultationpaper.pdf
Martin Partington: Introduction to the English Legal System 15th ed 2021
Oxford University Press Learning Link Resources
Martin Partington: Spotlight on the Justice System 