Source · Select Committees · Justice Committee
Recommendation 14
14
Deferred
Crown Court timeliness failures cause injustice, requiring long-term capacity investment.
Conclusion
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
Government Response Summary
The government stated that case listing is a judicial responsibility, but it supports efforts to improve effectiveness. It also mentioned working on Section 28 rollout and developing proposals for enhanced court provision for victims of sexual violence, with further details to be available later.
Government Response
Deferred
HM Government
Deferred
Listing The allocation and listing of individual cases is a judicial responsibility. This long- standing, constitutional principle was reflected in the 2004 Concordat setting out the respective responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, which states that ‘judges are responsible for deciding on the assignment of cases to particular courts and the listing of those cases before particular judges, working with [HMCTS]’. The government does, though, continue to support the judiciary in efforts to improve the effectiveness of listing practice. Examples include the Lord Chief Justice’s guidance on remote attendance, and the work of the Crown Court Improvement Group – under the leadership of the senior judiciary – that focuses on reducing the number of ineffective trials. HMCTS also works to make sure that court listing officers are provided with up-to- date training and guidance, and that good practice is shared. Policy initiatives Where government policy initiatives may have implications for listing or case management, the government will discuss outline proposals with the senior judiciary to understand potential operational implications. This engagement is in keeping with the spirit of the partnership arrangements in place for the running of the courts (as captured in the HMCTS Framework Document). For example, Ministry of Justice officials are working closely with the judiciary, police and the Crown Prosecution Service to make pre-recorded cross-examination (known as section 28) available for sexual and modern slavery complainants in all Crown Courts as soon as practicable. The Lord Chief Justice then took account of this work when preparing a revised practice direction, issued in March 2022, governing the use of section 28, including the listing of such cases. Work is currently under way with the senior judiciary to develop proposals for setting up enhanced court provision for victims of sexual violence. Further detail will be available in due course. The Criminal Courts—The magistrates’ courts: video hearings