Cost-cutting courts...

Breaking a habit of silence in order to combat the very real threat by a non-lawyer Lord Chancellor to the provision of justice of any meaningful kind in this country. This is not a party-political point, whatever the hue, cuts of the type proposed are a disgrace. Apart from fundamentally challenging rights we have enjoyed since they were forced out of King John in the 13th Century, the proposals are not based on empirical evidence and are opposed by every wing of the legal profession from Judges to students.

The false economy has long been stock in trade for the Civil Service; here they take it to new depths on the assumption that most of the general public, fortunately, has no contact with the criminal justice system.

This article is from a colleague in Chambers:

If you’re in any doubt as to the practical effect of cost cutting in the criminal justice system, consider this sorry state of affairs.

Until relatively recently, every magistrates’ court had cells. The risk of being convicted of or pleading guilty to an imprisonable offence is that a defendant may be… imprisoned. Sometimes, prisoners are remanded into custody prior to a trial (i.e. bail is denied), or between the alleged commission of the offence they are imprisoned for another matter. Perhaps a shoplifter might be arrested and bailed by the court, with a trial date 4 months later. During that 4 month period, he is alleged to commit another, more serious offence whilst on bail – say a dwelling burglary – and is held in custody, for a trial that will be heard after the trial for the earlier allegation of shoplifting. At the shoplifting trial, the defendant has to be produced from the prison, and is transported to court by one of a number of contractors – perhaps G4S, Serco, GeoAmey, or Reliance. At court, the gaolers will be provided by one of the contractors. They run the cells. It may surprise some readers to discover that (outside London) there is frequently no police officer based at the courthouse.

In order to save money, magistrates’ courts will now list different types of work on different days of the week – the ‘listing pattern’. For instance, trials on Mondays and Tuesdays (non-imprisonable matters tried on Mondays), youth trials on Wednesdays, traffic, bail, and first appearances on Thursdays, and sentences on Fridays. The obvious benefit being that the cells need only be manned on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. No one’s going to be sent to prison for running a red traffic light. Three days a week is an instant 40% cost saving, right? Well, probably not. Not to the courts service, for sure. Magistrates’ courts can’t operate this system in isolation – they have to co-operate with other courts in a collegiate system. What about prisoners remanded by the police to court (‘overnighters’) on a morning where there are no gaolers at the local court? They get produced at another magistrates’ court, probably in the same county. It’s not exactly ‘local’ justice, but it is said to save taxpayer’s cash.

Two weeks ago, the following happened. A defendant on bail was convicted after a trial of assaulting his estranged wife on two occasions. Within the context of the offence and had the court applied the sentencing guidelines accurately identifying the aggravating features, this man might have expected to be sent to prison for 6 months. He should certainly have been advised to attend the trial with his toothbrush, ‘just in case.’ The maximum in the magistrates’ court for a summary offence is a rarely imposed 6 months imprisonment. On conviction, the man made his views of the Bench loudly known to all and sundry on the court, arguing with the chairwoman. Ordinarily, a contempt of court, for which the man would be sent down to the cells with the gaolers. Probably nothing much would come of that, but a conviction might follow (there were certainly plenty of witnesses). More importantly, in light of his colourful observations from the dock about his estranged wife the court might well reconsider whether this man was suitable – or safe – to be bailed. That is, if the magistrates didn’t want to send him to custody immediately.

Of course none of those options were open to the court. As the cells were closed on this particular day, the court could either send the man to prison, asking him to wait outside the courtroom to be collected by a prison van run by a contractor, or adjourn the matter to be sentenced on a future occasion, bailing him. Unsurprisingly, the magistrates bailed him. Remember, none of this is anything to do with the police. A court which literally can’t send criminals to prison because Justice Secretary Chris Grayling wants to save money. An angry violent wife-beater released into the town for 3 weeks, on a promise not to seek revenge on his estranged wife. Would you trust him? The Ministry of Justice cynically calculates the risk against the cost-saving. But it’s a not a risk they have to take. It’s a risk borne primarily by the victim, and secondarily by members of the public. But just think of the money saved. Until he wreaks his revenge, and the police, NHS, courts, and probation have to pick up the pieces.