Stop delaying justice

The MOJ has brought out a new initiative called Stop Delaying Justice... okay so it's technically an initiative of the judiciary in the magistrates court but its an MOJ thing really.

The idea is that rather than allow defendants to take full advice on a case and their representatives to properly scrutinise the evidence, pleas should be taken on the first hearing and the case disposed of at the second hearing.  That means you enter a plea at first appearance then trial is second appearance no exception.

That's all well and good, but the truth is that if you speak to the duty solicitor at Thames Mags he might well have 15 other clients to deal with.  How much scrutiny do you think he's given you case?  Not much is the answer.  We can all say "well Mr X should know if he committed the crime or not".  But that's often not the case.  And, even if it is this country operates an adversarial legal system meaning that the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt and there is nothing wrong with the defendant asking the prosecution to do just that.

The other problem with Stop Delaying Justice is the CJSSS initiative that was also supposed to speed up the courts by reducing the amount of paperwork... in other words, instead of providing their evidence to the defence and court the prosecution simply give a Janet and John summary of the evidence upon which you are supposed to base all of your tactical decisions that Stop Delaying Justice insists you make on the spot at the first appearance.

How am I supposed to say if PC Smith is required when I've never seen a statement from him?  How do I agree that the arrest was lawful when I have no evidence about the arrest?  How do I agree that the interview transcript is accurate when I have neither transcript nor tape (and even if I did have the tape I have no way of listening to it).  To top it all, how am I supposed to agree evidence and do everything else when I'm appearing as the duty solicitor, have no legal aid and cannot say for sure whether I will be representing the client at trial?

It's also worth remembering that the summary is usually written by the police officer who has dealt with the defendant and because the police officers are human the summaries are frequently one-sided in favour of the prosecution.  In some cases you do get both the summary and selected witness statements, between which it is not uncommon to find significant disagreement.

Since the new year a number of courts have been turned into trial courts meaning that their pre-trial work is shipped to a neighbouring court.  In my area, Stratford is a trial court with all the other work going to Thames.  Last Monday court one at Thames had a list of 50 people and one duty solicitor to cover all comers.  The other courts had very similar lists.  The cells were holding just under 50 people, even though they have barely half that number of cells.

These initiatives are not about reducing delays.  They are about increasing conviction rates in my opinion.

If the MOJ seriously wants to reduce justice delays then they need to stop messing about with courts.  Keep the busy ones open, ensure that they are properly staffed and do the work in their area effectively.  Not sending cases all over the place and having courts in one place and admin in another - e.g. Romford Mags had its admin centre about 8 miles away in Redbridge for a while, which is fine until somebody forgets to send a file over then you have a week long delay!