Select committee: Justice Committee
Sixth report - Court capacity
HC 69
Published 27 April 2022
At a glance20 recommendations and 13 conclusions · Government response published 7 July 2022 (deadline 27 June 2022)
The government's response
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.
The government welcomes the Committee's report and says the Ministry of Justice and HMCTS "will continue to work alongside the judiciary" to keep courts at full capacity and reduce the outstanding caseload.
- On a Courts' Inspectorate, the government does not re-establish one, saying this "would require significant long-term resourcing which we are not currently set up to deliver". It has "committed to further considering" a Coroner Service Inspectorate.
- On Crown Court recovery, it states it is providing an extra £477 million over three years, aiming to reduce the backlog to "an estimated 53,000 cases by March 2025". It describes its plan as "ambitious" and says future years are "subject to Spending Reviews".
- It commits to providing a comprehensive evaluation of the Nightingale court programme "by the end of the 2022/23 financial year", and aims to publish a section 28 process evaluation "in the autumn".
- On a Royal Commission, it recognises the opportunity but is "now taking the time to consider where a Royal Commission will add the most value". It states the HMCTS reform programme "is on track to complete by December 2023 as planned".
What the committee recommended 33
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
Sources
- Sixth report - Court capacity ↗The committee's report, HC 69, parliament.uk
- First Special Report - Court capacity: Government Response to the Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2021–22 ↗The government's response, 7 July 2022, parliament.uk
Recommendations and conclusions 33
-
1
Nightingale Courts made a major contribution to increasing court capacity during pandemic. Conclusion (the committee's words)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.
-
2
Court estate maintenance backlog is a serious problem impacting court capacity and justice delivery. Conclusion (the committee's words)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.
-
3
Require Government to develop multi-year funded plan to improve quality of court estate. Recommendation (the committee's words)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.
-
4
Require Ministry of Justice to publish progress and final cost of HMCTS court reform programme. Recommendation (the committee's words)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.
-
5
MoJ and HMCTS missed court reform opportunities due to insufficient early data collection. Conclusion (the committee's words)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.
-
6
High-quality data is essential for MoJ to determine court capacity and predict caseloads. Conclusion (the committee's words)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.
-
7
Require Ministry of Justice to ring-fence funding for data improvement and publish timetable. Recommendation (the committee's words)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.
-
8
Judicial capacity identified as the most pressing constraint on the court system. Conclusion (the committee's words)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.
-
9
Urgent need for collaboration on judge recruitment and competitive HMCTS staff pay. Conclusion (the committee's words)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.
-
10
Existing criminal justice inspection regime deemed insufficient and inadequate over time. Conclusion (the committee's words)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.
-
11
Establish a new courts’ inspectorate to cover civil, family, and Coroners’ Courts. Recommendation (the committee's words)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.
-
12
Re-establish an independent Courts’ Inspectorate with updated, broadened terms of reference. Recommendation (the committee's words)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.
-
13
Publish monthly Crown Court trial targets and a roadmap for outstanding case reduction. Recommendation (the committee's words)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.
-
14
Crown Court timeliness failures cause injustice, requiring long-term capacity investment. Conclusion (the committee's words)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.
-
15
Set specific timeliness targets across criminal justice system, including for rape cases. Recommendation (the committee's words)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.
-
16
Publish Crown Court forecasting models, detailed recovery plan and long-term capacity targets. Recommendation (the committee's words)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.
-
17
Produce a detailed long-term plan to increase judicial capacity in the Crown Court. Recommendation (the committee's words)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.
-
18
Produce comprehensive evaluation of Nightingale Courts and outline future policy for supplementary venues. Recommendation (the committee's words)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.
-
19
Set out plans for providing additional super-courtrooms to enhance court capacity. Recommendation (the committee's words)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
-
20
In-person advocate attendance often crucial for serious Crown Court cases. Conclusion (the committee's words)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.
-
21
Thorough review of Section 28 implications required before further expansion. Conclusion (the committee's words)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.
-
22
Improve listing transparency by establishing specialist rape courts and providing Section 28 guidance. Recommendation (the committee's words)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.
-
23
Importance of system-wide coordination for technology use in magistrates' courts. Conclusion (the committee's words)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.
-
24
Streamline magistrates' recruitment process to ensure applications are processed within six months. Recommendation (the committee's words)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.
-
25
Conduct 12-month review of increased magistrates' sentencing power and Crown Court workload impact. Recommendation (the committee's words)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.
-
26
Establish a Royal Commission to review the criminal justice processes. Recommendation (the committee's words)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.
-
27
Family justice requires urgent cross-government attention to improve support for separating couples. Recommendation (the committee's words)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.
-
28
Develop a Family Justice action plan to expand capacity and improve timeliness by 2025. Recommendation (the committee's words)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.
-
29
Mediation Voucher Scheme shows promise but requires further scaling to meet Family Court demand. Recommendation (the committee's words)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.
-
30
Remote hearings negatively impact Family Court capacity and the overall quality of justice. Conclusion (the committee's words)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.
-
31
Confirm Core Case Data rollout timeline and publish local civil justice scorecards for transparency. Recommendation (the committee's words)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.
-
32
Set out steps to reduce County Court delays and boost its overall operational capacity. Recommendation (the committee's words)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.
-
33
Enhancing court capacity requires addressing judicial, staff, digital, and physical elements concurrently. Conclusion (the committee's words)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.