Court Capacity

HMCTS deserve praise for delivering the Nightingale Court project. The project made a major contribution to increasing the capacity of the courts during the pandemic.

The maintenance backlog in the court estate is a serious problem. While there are some good court buildings, far too many are in a poor condition. This is having a negative effect on other elements of court capacity and, if not addressed, risks undermining the delivery of the high-quality justice system which this country expects.

The Government should develop and deliver a comprehensive plan to improve the quality of the court estate, which is funded on a multi-year basis. The plan should identify solutions for delivering essential maintenance without reducing physical capacity. It should also set out a long-term strategy for improving the court estate so that it provides a proper and acceptable environment for all its users. The Government has shown through the use of Nightingale Courts that temporary courtrooms can be made operational if required and, if necessary, this model should be used to enable permanent buildings to undergo essential work. (Paragraph 15) Digital Capacity

We recommend that the Ministry of Justice publish an update on the progress made on each project within the HMCTS court reform programme and, in particular, the date by which the programme is expected to complete and its anticipated final cost.

The Ministry of Justice and HMCTS have missed opportunities to swiftly deliver an ambitious court reform programme. Many of the problems that we heard about during our inquiry and continue to hear about, could have been avoided if better data collection had been built into the system much earlier. We recognise that the MoJ and HMCTS are taking steps to improve the data situation. However, we would stress that the level of improvement required will need a sustained focus and significant investment.

Improving the quality of data in the justice system will help the MoJ to determine whether the courts have the capacity they need to deal with cases in a timely fashion. The Government needs to have access to high-quality data in order to be able predict how the number of cases are likely to change and to be able to analyse the ability of the courts to process cases.

The Ministry of Justice must ensure that it ring-fences funding from Spending Review 2021 to expedite work to deliver on its commitments to improve data, as Court Capacity 43 well as allocating funding for this work as part of Spending Review 2022. In so doing, the MoJ should publish a detailed timetable for implementation to ensure it is accountable for progress. (Paragraph 24) Judicial capacity and HMCTS staff capacity

When the number of staff and judges falls more sharply than the overall caseload, there are bound to be capacity issues in the courts. Even if the number of cases falls more quickly than the number of staff, reducing judicial and staff capacity creates a risk when there is always a possibility that the number of cases will increase again. As discussed later in this Report, at present, judicial capacity is the most pressing constraint on the capacity of the courts.

The Government, the Judiciary and the Judicial Appointments Commission should work closely together to address the challenges in recruiting judges in those areas where there is the greatest need for increased capacity. In relation to the pay of HMCTS staff, the Government needs to ensure that pay levels keep up with those for equivalent roles in other departments. (Paragraph 29) Evaluating court capacity

The Government also argued that the inspection provided by the existing criminal justice inspectorates and the National Audit Office was sufficient. We do not believe that this argument has stood the test of time.

We are concerned that at present there is a significant gap within the inspection regime in the justice system. For example, there is no inspectorate that covers the civil and family courts. Nor is there one in respect of Coroners’ Courts—indeed, our Report on the Coroner Service recommended that the Ministry of Justice should establish a dedicated Coroner Service inspectorate. A new courts’ inspectorate could also inspect Coroners’ Courts. Any courts’ inspectorate would have to respect judicial independence by focusing on the administration of the courts as opposed to substantive judicial decisions. It would also need to learn the lessons from the limitations of the Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Court Administration.

A Courts’ Inspectorate, which is independent from Government, could make a substantial difference to the accountability and transparency of the justice system. It could use inspections and the promised improvements to the quality of the data to make recommendations that can inform policy and guidance in both criminal and civil justice. An inspectorate could also help to monitor the use of technology in the courts. Accordingly, we recommend that the Government re-establish a Courts’ Inspectorate with updated and broadened terms of reference. (Paragraph 35) 44 Court Capacity The criminal courts The Crown Court

The recovery in the Crown Court will depend on the ability of the courts to dispose of a significantly higher average number of trials each month. While we recognise the difficulties of setting prescriptive targets. While we recognise the difficulties of setting prescriptive targets, the Government should set out the number of Crown Court trials that will need to be disposed of each month in order to deliver the reduction in the number of outstanding cases to reach its target of 53,000 by March 2025, and complement this with a detailed roadmap for achieving this.

The current situation on timeliness in the Crown Court is causing significant injustice. The pandemic has made the situation worse, but the factors responsible for increased delays over the past decade are deep-rooted. A long-term approach to investment in the capacity of the Crown Court and the wider criminal justice system is required to improve the situation on timeliness. (Paragraph 50) Timeliness in the Crown Court

The Committee welcomes the publication of criminal justice scorecards. We recommend that the Government builds on these scorecards by setting itself targets to improve timeliness across the criminal justice system. The Government should also set timeliness targets for the average time taken from offence recorded to ultimate conclusion for specific offences, such as rape. (Paragraph 52) Sitting days in the Crown Court

Whilst we welcome the opportunity to view the MoJ’s forecasting models, we recommend that the Government routinely publishes its models and publishes a detailed recovery plan that sets out how it plans to meet its target of reducing the number of outstanding cases to 53,000 by March 2025. We believe that this target is not ambitious enough to build the capacity of the Crown Court in the long-term. Reducing delays in the long-term will require a sustained increase in the resourcing of the Crown Court. The Government should therefore also set targets for increasing the physical, judicial and staff capacity of the Crown Court in order to be able to deliver at least 110,000 sitting days a year for the next five years. (Paragraph 56) Judicial capacity in the Crown Court

We share the view of the judiciary and the MoJ that judicial capacity is, at present, the most pressing constraint in the courts system. We welcome the Government’s plans to recruit more judges. The Government should learn the lesson from past decisions that have led to a reduction in judicial capacity. Increasing the number of judges is a difficult task which requires a long-term approach and a sustained focus. The MoJ should produce a detailed plan on how it intends to increase the number of judges in the Crown Court in the long-term. (Paragraph 59) Court Capacity 45 Physical capacity in the Crown Court

We welcome the Government’s announcement of the lease extension for a number of the Nightingale Courts. The Government should now set out its policy on the future use of supplementary venues to support the work of the Crown Court. It should also produce a comprehensive evaluation of the Nightingale Courts, and ensure that the lessons learned from their establishment and operation are taken forward.

The Committee welcomes the creation of super-courtrooms and commends HMCTS for their work in getting them up and running during the pandemic. The Government should set out how many more super-courtrooms will be provided by

The Committee recognises the advantages for advocates to attend remotely; however, it is important to recognise that in Crown Court cases dealing with the most serious cases, it will often be in the interests of justice for advocates to attend in person.

The rollout and expansion of section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which allows pre-recording of evidence and cross-examination for children and vulnerable witnesses, is an important step in improving the experience of these witnesses in the criminal justice system. However, it is vital that a thorough review of the practical and procedural implications of the use of section 28 is undertaken before there is any further expansion of its use. (Paragraph 69) Listing in the Crown Court

There is more that can be done to make listing more transparent and effective, for example by distinguishing between listing decisions based on court capacity and those based on case progression. The development of local justice scorecards will help to identify where delays are particularly acute. In terms of effectiveness, national level guidance on listing certain types of cases, such as that produced by the Lord Chief Justice on remote attendance, would be valuable. The Government should make a contribution to improving listing through policy initiatives, such as the establishment of specialist rape courts and guidance on the use of section 28 evidence. (Paragraph 74) The magistrates’ courts: video hearings

The use of video remand hearings in magistrates courts highlights the importance of coordination across the criminal justice system on the use technology within the criminal courts. In the long-term, the MoJ should use research on remote hearings, such as the Evaluation of remote hearings during the Covid-19 pandemic, to develop guidance and policies on when video hearings should be used in the magistrates’ courts. (Paragraph 78) 46 Court Capacity Judicial capacity in the magistrates’ courts

The Committee welcomes the Government’s launch of a major campaign to recruit magistrates. The Government should also consider whether it would be possible, as the Committee recommended in 2016, to streamline the recruitment process, so that applications are processed within six months. (Paragraph 80) Increasing the power of magistrates

The Committee supports the decision to increase the sentencing power of magistrates. The Government should conduct a review of the change 12 months after it has come into force and evaluate its effect on the workload of the Crown Court. (Paragraph 83) The case for a Royal Commission on the criminal justice system

The evidence to this inquiry has shown that the criminal courts are going through a period of significant change and the question of the role of technology in the courts is particularly pressing. The Government should proceed with its manifesto commitment to establish a Royal Commission on the criminal justice processes. (Paragraph 85) Civil and family courts Family Court

The Committee welcomes the Deputy Prime Minister’s willingness to consider bold solutions in family justice. It is an area of the justice system that needs the Government’s full attention. Just as with the criminal justice system, it is vital that the ministers responsible for family justice work across Government, for example with the Minister for Children and Families, to develop policies that can help improve the support for separating couples and their children.

We are concerned by the growing number of cases in the Family Court. The Government should develop a Family Justice action plan to address this problem. The action plan should set out how the Government will expand the capacity of the family justice system to deal with the growing number of private family law cases. It should also set a target for reducing the number of outstanding cases by 2025, and for improving the timeliness of cases in the Family Court. (Paragraph 98) Family Court: mediation

The Government’s Mediation Voucher Scheme is a welcome development for the capacity of the Family Court. The initial results, with 400 vouchers being used and with 77 percent of cases reaching full or partial agreements, are promising. While we recognise the value of piloting such approaches, we would encourage the Court Capacity 47 Government to find solutions that can match the scale of the challenge facing the Family Court. We agree with Resolution that the Government needs to ensure that there are a range of options available to separating families. (Paragraph 101) Technology in the Family Court

We are concerned that the current approach to remote hearings in the Family Court is having a negative effect both on court capacity but also on the quality of the justice itself. Whilst we note that a significant proportion of users are said to prefer remote hearings, the interest of justice should be placed above what is most convenient to users of the court. (Paragraph 104) County Court

We welcome the Government’s ambition to improve the use of digital technology in the County Courts. We would ask the Government to confirm the timeline for the rollout of Core Case Data. Once the data is available, the Government should also publish local civil justice scorecards to enhance the transparency of timeliness in the civil and family courts. (Paragraph 110) Judicial resources in the civil and family courts

The County Court is vital to access to justice in England and Wales. The public relies on it to resolve disputes and vindicate their rights. As such, the significant increase in delays in certain cases in the County Court is concerning. It is imperative that the Government provides the resources to ensure that the County Court has the capacity to deal with cases in a timely fashion. It is imperative that the Government provides the resources to ensure that the County Court has the capacity to deal with cases in a timely fashion. The Government should set out what steps it is taking to reduce delays in the County Court and to improve the judicial, physical, digital and staff capacity of the County Court.

To enhance the capacity of the civil and family courts, it is vital to address each of the core elements of court capacity: judicial, staff, digital and physical. As the Lord Chief Justice explained, digital and physical capacity have a significant bearing on the ability to recruit judges and expand judicial capacity. (Paragraph 114) 48 Court Capacity