Magistrates launch scathing attack on court closure plans

The Magistrates’ Association has “grave disquiet” about the Ministry of Justice’s proposed court closure programme, arguing that the plans run counter to the coalition agreement’s emphasis on decentralisation of services.

In its submission to the MoJ’s consultation on the potential axeing of 103 magistrates’ courts and 54 county courts, it said: “The Association believes that the principles of a summary justice system at the heart of communities across England and Wales should drive the estates strategy rather than closure proposals based merely on a superficial national estates strategy driving summary justice.”

The Association went on to say that the indicated savings from the closure programme represent “but a tiny fraction” of the whole Courts Service budget, let alone the MoJ budget.

It added: “Courts should be placed at the heart of communities based upon crime statistics and realistic access to justice for all concerned and in particular victims and witnesses.

“There should be a coherent holistic strategy to overcome the years of salami slicing of the courts services and build on the need for flexibility in the use of courts delivering justice and regulation.”

The Association said low utilisation rates reported by the MoJ were questionable. In any event, it suggested, rates could be increased through measures such as sharing courthouses with tribunals, the coronial service, county and Crown courts. Delays in running trials at some Crown courts could be reduced by transfer to magistrates’ courts, it added.

A number of criticisms were levied at the MoJ’s consultation process, including that many of the figures on which the proposals are based have been discredited.

The submission concluded: “The Magistrates’ Association believes that the notion of a summary justice system for communities is too important to be decided by civil servants who have limited appreciation on the value of citizen involvement in the administration of justice.

“The coalition’s thinking on the ‘Big Society’ is well supported by a strong magistracy. This means that adequate facilities must be provided to put magistrates’ courts at the heart of the community.”

In September, the Local Government Association called for council chambers to be used to hold proceedings in places where existing courts face the axe. It also demanded that decisions on whether to close courts should be taken jointly with local councillors.

The Magistrates’ Association’s recommendations in full

1. A full review of the structure and purpose of the summary justice system especially incorporating the conclusions from the Family Justice Review to provide a blueprint for a cohesive holistic justice system
2. A detailed examination of the current judicial role of magistrates to consider wide-ranging developments particularly aimed at reducing the pressure and undue delays on the Crown Court by transferring more cases to the lower courts
3. A detailed analysis of the judicial estate to rationalise the use of resources on a shared basis.
4. An immediate freeze on the appointment and replacement of district judges (magistrates’ courts), to contribute a significant amount to the proposed savings to be allegedly achieved through the closure of a third of all magistrates’ courts
5. Magistrates should have a more formal role in the local management of magistrates’ courts to ensure that the needs of communities and the judiciary are properly and adequately met to deliver justice more cost effectively
6. Research is undertaken on ideal bench sizes to inform any future bench mergers.
7. A thorough examination of the whole structure of the court support services.
8. A review of the inter-relationship of these three agencies to ensure continuity, timeliness and more cost effectiveness in the preparation and presentation of cases in court.
9. A more proactive development of HMCS’s blueprint for fines collection with greater involvement of the judiciary coupled with local performance driven collection facilities.
10. A clear purpose is implemented for the victim surcharge by using it to establish a compensation fund to pay victims immediately the compensation is awarded by the courts rather than wait for the defendant to pay part of it when it suits them.
11. The establishment of a separate analytical body involving all stakeholders to ensure full consultation on impact assessments and business cases so that the proposals can be owned by all concerned.