THE SPURIOUS ARITHMETIC BEHIND COURT CLOSURES

 07. Jul. 2010. – 14:33:23 

It is only a few years since Magistrates` Courts [and others] have been run under the banner of Her Majesty`s Court Service. In less than a generation these courts have gone from each being managed by a single person to a management structure which must be a joy to all those committees who designed the horse and ended up with a camel. When there is a noticeable trend in retail organisations and similar to return management to those at the coal face the government is still on the up escalator whilst those who have to answer to shareholders and pay dividends have decided that they must de centralise and assign local powers to local managers.

In order for each court to function dozens of individual activities must be co-ordinated; some directly within the court`s remit...court lists, staff availability, etc etc but many other bodies must also do similar eg JP`s to cover the day`s listings, CPS personnel and case files, witness support to ensure appearances of witnesses, SERCO to produce prisoners, probation officers to have available and to prepare reports, police officers, defence lawyers, defendants and more, much more. 

With the furore over proposed court closures it is naturally consuming much parliamentary time. Yesterday Jonathan Djanogly (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (HM Courts Service and Legal Aid), Justice; Huntingdon, Conservative) had the following exchange:
Philip Davies (Shipley, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the likely effect of his proposals to (a) merge and (b) close courts on the workload of each remaining magistrate's court.
* Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 6 July 2010, c162W)
Jonathan Djanogly (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (HM Courts Service and Legal Aid), Justice; Huntingdon, Conservative)

An initial impact assessment has been produced for the consultations. The impacts, costs and benefits of the proposed court closures and bench mergers will be considered more fully during the consultation phase and a full impact assessment will be produced alongside the consultation responses.

Utilisation rates currently average 64% across the magistrates courts. Courtroom utilisation is the time a courtroom is used, against the hours that a courtroom is available for use. The Government's aim is to increase utilisation of courtroom time to at least 80%. If the proposed closures went ahead and workload was transferred to surrounding courts it is estimated that it would result in a national utilisation rate in the magistrates courts of around 80%.

My and my colleagues available court time is 10.00am - 1.00pm, 2.00pm - 5.00pm; six hours but often more. Courts are never held up by non availability of JPs but all the other factors and more listed above singly or in combination lead to most colleagues on my bench having "down time" of at least one hour daily ie their court not operating owing to people, paper or both being unavailable. The Minister seems to think that by cramming more work into fewer courts these inefficiencies will disappear and 64 will become 80. I can tell the Minister he is talking rubbish. The co-ordination and efficiency of these groups will not be changed from Whitehall. If this is an example of how Kenneth Clarke`s position on court closures is being rationalised I despair....and I`m a half full person by temperament. 

MINIMUM DRINK DRIVING BAN & THE MAGISTRATES` ASSOCIATION

 05. Jul. 2010. – 16:39:31 

There was published recently Sir Peter North`s Review of Drink and Drug Driving Law. An important point in his conclusions was that even with a lowered limit of 50mg/100ml he does not recommend that the mandatory disqualification period of 12 months should be lowered. Although I have argued for 10mg/100ml limit I agree with his conclusion that the existing 12 month ban be maintained as much for the message it sends out as anything else which is it`s still a danger to all to drive and drink. If there were a suggestion of reducing the mandatory period it would be a retrograde step and certainly not one to encourage abstinence when driving.

The Magistrates` Association thinks differently. According to a news item in its current house magazine its March Council meeting expressed its preference for a reduced period of disqualification if the current level were lowered. The Association is meant to represent through its branch and representative structure the views of its members……..so did the Transport and General Workers Union and the Amalgamated Engineering Union . I seem to recall that amongst other things these unions contributed to the destruction of 90% of British car manufacturing. The Magistrates` Association must in these difficult times retain its members` confidence. However the Association is treading on very dangerous ground if it purports to represent its members` views with any further statements of a similar nature on this subject. 

I would urge any colleagues reading this to make their views known ASAP, whichever side of the argument they take, by contacting their branch rep., contacting the MA directly or through the MA Forum or even commenting here.