Skip to main content

Set up courts in pubs and hotels says Lord Chief Justice

Lord Chief Justice wants to see court hearings in pubs

As Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas is the most senior judge in the country (I’m not entirely sure how that is the case since he sits in the Court of Appeal and you’d think the President of the Supreme Court would be the boss, but clearly that’s the hierarchical mess you’re left with when you appoint non-judges to the role of Lord Chancellor) and he wants to modernise the justice system. 

Lord Thomas has come up with the bright idea of judges pitching up in pubs, town halls and hotels to hear cases – I doubt it’s all his idea, I suspect that one of the 24% of alcoholic lawyers in practice may have guided him.  In fact, I’m sure I’ve heard this idea before but last time it was the Ministry of Justice who were planning to open courts in shopping centres

I must admit that I quite like the idea of a pint during trials, would make things flow well.  Could bring back smoking too, I know we’re not supposed to say or think it but I always thought smoking looked kinda cool.

How sensible are these plans?  Not very is my opinion.  Cases are frequently becoming more technical, by which I mean more evidence is being served and presented during hearings electronically on screens in court.  Can you imagine the cost of setting up screens and click-share at the bar of the Red Lion?  It’s also worth remembering that courts are supposed to be places in which Her Majesty’s judge’s dispense justice in the name of Her Majesty.  The idea of deciding important matters while sitting in a Travel Inn on the M5 just doesn’t seem compatible with that purpose.  You may well be thinking “ahh yes, Nick.  But, surely they’d only be dealing with minor cases not important ones?”  Well you’re probably correct – the case probably isn’t important to you in the slightest but it may well be important to the people involved.  It might only be a dispute over whether a fence is on John’s land or Sarah’s land but to them it’s a big deal.

The evolution that Lord Thomas is touting, and which might actually happen, is a move towards online justice.  I’m not wholly comfortable with it myself but I gather the idea is to get more people handling their own cases online without recourse to solicitors.  I’m not comfortable with that for a number of reasons.  The main ones are that lots of people aren’t computer savvy and even today I find surprisingly young people who have no email address – only last week I met a 21 year old who has no access to a computer, smart phone, etc. 

More importantly from Lord Thomas’s point of view is that people have very funny ideas about what the law is (or should be).  You only have to look at the comments pages of most newspapers to see that people really have no idea, e.g. I read a story that somebody died in a fire and that Boris Johnson had cut the number of fire engines in that area from 5 to 2.  Below the story were urgent calls for Mr Johnson to be tried for murder, corporate manslaughter and a whole host of other crimes.  You see that kind of thing all the time and it’s not because people are stupid but because they really have no idea what the law says.

With that in mind what happens if we remove lawyers from the mix and encourage people to go to law by themselves?  I’d suggest the answer is that a lot of cases that would previously have be stopped by advice from a solicitor will clog up the courts and cause lots of delays, which is precisely what happened when legal aid was removed from family proceedings

The government no doubt hopes to mitigate the delays caused by litigants in person bringing cases that should never see the inside of a court by pushing people towards non-court options, such as mediation.  The reality though is that mediation is unsuitable in many cases and so the chances are we’ll see even more court delays in future


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…