TYPICAL MORNING AT COURT

 

by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 13. Oct. 2010. – 14:54:16

All those involved in the work of the courts from ushers to judges would have appropriate comments when they hear of government ministers seeking to address “inefficiencies”. If one was Henry Ford then the answer would be fairly simple……employ a rigidly selected workforce at a wage just enough to keep it from joining the masses of unemployed, ensure that all bits of the final product are in the proper place at the proper time and enforce a strong disciplinary culture…..and of course have an admiration for the ethics of the nazi party.



However Jonathan Djanogly seems to think that efficiency or utilisation at magistrates` courts can be raised from the current 64% to 80%. [Written Answers - Justice: Courts: Closures (6 Jul 2010)] This is an admirable target.; so is landing a man on Mars by 2025.



Our court along I suppose with others habitually double lists trials to ensure work goes ahead. This of course is as a result of the number of trials vacated, cracked or foreshortened for any reason. Case progression officers still seem to be caught short. A colleague`s experience a few days ago reminded me of a typical morning`s under utilisation in late September.



We had two trials listed for the morning. No usher was available so that was a good start. We told our hard pressed L/A we wouldn`t proceed until an usher was available. So with a ten minute delay [an usher became available] we began the sitting with two trials listed for the morning. The first was a second listing of an assault and everyone was ready to go…. the defendant, his counsel and witnesses and CPS with their three witnesses. The other matter was not so straightforward……..is anything? It was a third listing, and the second for trial on alleged handling. Apparently legal aid according to the court file was not granted until the morning of the [adjourned] trial and the solicitors were informed the following day. On this day he appeared before us without representation having been told by the solicitors in question that legal aid had not been granted. He told us quite definitely that he did not want to phone the solicitors to sort out the confusion and that he would represent himself. He was again offered an adjournment which he declined. He had no witnesses. CPS told us that their case was mainly agreed statements and two police officers. Her estimate was two hours maximum. Thus we had two trials ready. Since the handling matter had been adjourned previously through no fault of the defendant and with his determination to go it alone we decided to proceed with that prior to which pronouncement the defence counsel for the assault had made quite a performance of her observations on our position. We adjourned that case to a later date but then our usher who had proved her usefulness whispered to our L/A that another court might have a trial vacating but it would be a half hour before that could be confirmed. It was now about 11.00am. That knowledge was conveyed to the assault party. Counsel consented to waiting until 11.30am. and we retired for five minutes to allow the L/A to finish paperwork during which time we spoke to our DJ who commented that he was light for work and could have taken the trial himself but he had no CPS lawyer only a DCW who was of course not qualified for trial work. With that we began the handling trial. When we concluded at 12.30pm we were told that at 12.00 noon the case at the other court was a no go and they could have taken our assault trial.



Such is a typical morning at a magistrates` court. The minister might have his 80% utilisation but at what price? Our court was at 90% utilisation, our neighbours were left looking for crumbs after 12.00 noon and the DJ was being paid to have coffee and biscuits. Double listing might be good for HMCS but it shows less than respect for those who are the users.