*/
Judges voiced concern that the government’s £1.2bn programme to modernise the courts could compromise access to justice.
In a private consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and the President of the Tribunals Service, reported in The Times newspaper, judges said that the programme, which involves court closures, online and virtual hearings and digitising paper-based services, was ‘driven by austerity and the need to achieve savings, rather than by providing an improved service for the public, the judiciary or staff’.
They said: ‘There is also a strong sense that open justice, access to justice, local justice, should not be compromised,’ stating that ‘thinking about and planning for tomorrow should not come at the expense of delivering justice in the proceedings that come before us today’.
Two weeks earlier a report from the Public Accounts Committee warned that the reforms were being pursued too quickly and without adequate consultation due to the need to make savings. It said the ‘hugely ambitious’ modernisation programme was ‘extremely challenging to deliver’ and already behind schedule.
Committee Chair, Meg Hillier said: ‘Government has cut corners in its rush to push through these reforms. The timetable was unrealistic, consultation has been inadequate and, even now, HMCTS has not clearly explained what the changes will mean in practice.’
A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said it was working with the judiciary and remained confident that the programme was ‘on track to creating a better, more straightforward, accessible and efficient justice system’.
Judges voiced concern that the government’s £1.2bn programme to modernise the courts could compromise access to justice.
In a private consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and the President of the Tribunals Service, reported in The Times newspaper, judges said that the programme, which involves court closures, online and virtual hearings and digitising paper-based services, was ‘driven by austerity and the need to achieve savings, rather than by providing an improved service for the public, the judiciary or staff’.
They said: ‘There is also a strong sense that open justice, access to justice, local justice, should not be compromised,’ stating that ‘thinking about and planning for tomorrow should not come at the expense of delivering justice in the proceedings that come before us today’.
Two weeks earlier a report from the Public Accounts Committee warned that the reforms were being pursued too quickly and without adequate consultation due to the need to make savings. It said the ‘hugely ambitious’ modernisation programme was ‘extremely challenging to deliver’ and already behind schedule.
Committee Chair, Meg Hillier said: ‘Government has cut corners in its rush to push through these reforms. The timetable was unrealistic, consultation has been inadequate and, even now, HMCTS has not clearly explained what the changes will mean in practice.’
A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said it was working with the judiciary and remained confident that the programme was ‘on track to creating a better, more straightforward, accessible and efficient justice system’.
Chair of the Bar sets out a busy calendar for the rest of the year
Why Virtual Assistants Can Meet the Legal Profession’s Exacting Standards
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Examined by Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
Time is precious for barristers. Every moment spent chasing paperwork, organising diaries, or managing admin is time taken away from what matters most: preparation, advocacy and your clients. That’s where Eden Assistants step in
AlphaBiolabs has announced its latest Giving Back donation to RAY Ceredigion, a grassroots West Wales charity that provides play, learning and community opportunities for families across Ceredigion County
Despite increased awareness, why are AI hallucinations continuing to infiltrate court cases at an alarming rate? Matthew Lee investigates
The proscribing of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act is an assault on the English language and on civil liberties, argues Paul Harris SC, founder of the Bar Human Rights Committee
Come in with your eyes open, but don’t let fear cloud the prospect. A view from practice by John Dove
Anon Academic explains why he’s leaving the world of English literature for the Bar – after all, the two are not as far apart as they may first seem...
Review by Stephen Cragg KC
