GLD Vacancies

Value of a court "cannot be measured in a balance sheet", says LCJ

The value of the provision of any individual court to its local community “cannot be measured in and is certainly not confined to the figures on a balance sheet”, the Lord Chief Justice has said in a letter to Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

Lord Judge acknowledged that it was up the minister to weigh up the public advantage in keeping any court open, and he accepted that the current climate “means that every single opportunity to find savings must be considered”.

The Lord Chief Justice added: “It is equally clear that a number of courts in different parts of England and Wales no longer serve any sufficiently valuable public service. Some courts are under used, others are situated very close to each other, and yet others are in a poor state of repair and, to coin a phrase, unfit for purpose.”

Lord Judge was at pains to say that the response he was submitting was not intended to be an all-encompassing judicial response to the Ministry of Justice’s court closure plans, but simply an analysis of the responses received from consultation.

He said: “It is clear on the evidence that there are a number of cases where the case for closure is plain and clear, others where it is not, and yet others where the evidence on which the case for closure has been based has been called into question in a way which appears to be reasonable and fairly calls the evidence in support of closure into question. This relates in particular to travel times.”

The Lord Chief Justice also highlighted that in some cases a satisfactory alternative to closure might be available.

The review of responses – conducted by Lord Justice Goldring, Senior Presiding Judge for England and Wales – identified some consistent themes:

  • Accuracy of data: “There appear to be some significant errors in the consultation papers”. In one example (Abergavenny Magistrates’ Court), the consultation paper made the case for the closure on the basis that the court has not been used since 1999. However, the review reveals that the court has recently been refurbished and reopened in July 2010
  • Travel times: “Before decisions are taken on closures, it is important fully to consider the impact on those who already travel from the outlying parts of the catchment areas of those courts where closures are proposed.” The consultation papers assume that users live in the same location as the court earmarked for closure. However, the Goldring review points out that many users already have journey times of an hour to their local court and this could easily be doubled if they have to travel to the suggested alternative court. “In a significant number of examples, court users would face journey times leaving many unable to arrive at court before 10am or return home after 4pm
  • Family work: Lord Justice Goldring said he was “particularly concerned” about access to family justice. He urged consideration of family work before any plans to close family centres are implemented, saying that there have been significant increases in workload which are likely to be sustained. The judge also expressed concern about the co-location of the Family Proceedings Courts and county courts, either physically or in respect of their administration
  • Utilisation figures: “The consultation papers lack real detail in terms of utilisation figures”. Many judges and magistrates are concerned at the ability of neighbouring courts to take on the workload of closing courts. Lord Justice Goldring was also “troubled” by the assertion that an 80% utilisation rate can be achieved without an increase in delay
  • Net savings: the savings identified are significant (at £15m) but appear not to take into account additional costs that will be incurred if closures go ahead. These costs include: increased expense claims for magistrates, victims and witnesses; police time if more defendants fail to appear; enabling works; potential retention of leaseholds; running costs that are simply transferred to the new building; and more ineffective cases because of the failure of witnesses and parties to arrive at court on time or at all
  • Disability Discrimination Act compliance: “In an ideal world the entire court estate would be compliant with the requirements of the Act but, of course, that is not achievable. Whilst relevant, it cannot be determinative”
  • Recruitment and morale of magistrates: Lord Justice Goldring said he was concerned that a more disparate court estate would impact on the spread of magistrates willing to put themselves forward for what is important, voluntary work. “I fear too that morale among remaining magistrates will fall if strong reasons for retaining a court are ignored in favour of negligible financial savings”
  • Co-location possibilities: “It is not clear whether there is a long-term strategic vision in relation to co-location opportunities”. More work is needed to identify whether the tribunals, coroner or other agencies can make use of existing buildings
  • Enabling works: no closure should be implemented without the necessary funding in place for enabling works at neighbouring courts to be undertaken
  • Judicial accommodation: judges must be capable of being accommodated elsewhere, if their court is to be closed. A sufficient number of courtrooms ought to be available for the additional work, particularly in relation to family work
  • Maintenance backlogs: many judges and magistrates have queried the figures in the consultation paper in relation to backlogs. Some of the work deemed essential might be, at best, merely desirable
  • Demographics: “Little account appears to have been taken of demographic shifts in the population beyond a general statement in all of the consultation papers that current court locations do not reflect changes in population, workload or transport. There appears to be little analysis of the first and third points”
  • Bench mergers: Lord Justice Goldring said he understood the nervousness about bench mergers, but urged magistrates to look creatively at how work can sensibly be managed on a wider and more flexible basis than may previously have been the case. However, he also warned that such plans should not be rushed. Many magistrates have sensible alternative proposals for area organisation that should be examined, the judge said.
  • LJA Boundaries: “Court closures appear to have been suggested on the basis that work will be moved to another court within the local LJA. This has produced some odd results.” Further work is required to consider whether accessibility, rather than traditional LJA boundaries, should be the priority.

Lord Justice Goldring also sets out in his review those courts where he believes there is a clear business reason for closure, those where closure is not supported, and those where further detail is required before a decision is taken.