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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment