Recommendation 9

However, users including court staff and stakeholders, still feel that HMCTS’s engagement with them has not been sufficient, especially during the rollout of common platform. We received written evidence from the Bar Council, which told us that as far as it was concerned, the designers and producers of the common platform appeared to have a limited understanding of working needs and practices, and “displayed a marked reluctance for the system to be designed in conjunction with, and for the benefit of, professional court users”.16 It similarly told us that the systems that have been put in place do not work efficiently, and appeared to have been designed “in a vacuum rather than with a proper understanding of how those who use the court actually work”. It explained that in designing the new systems, HMCTS had not, for example, shadowed advocates, court staff and judges to see the systems in operation. Overall, it asserted that the roll out of the common platform was “widely perceived” as a failure, and that court users had struggled to log onto the system, there were doubts about the design of the platform, there was little information on take-up by those who were supposed to use the system, and guidance was of insufficient quality to meet the needs of users.17