The Law Society of England and Wales would like to submit some additional points to our response to Lord Justice Aulds' Review, to take account of the particular needs and circumstances of citizens in Wales.
The Law Society supports devolution and maintains excellent and productive working relationships with the National Assembly for Wales through the work of our Welsh Affairs Working Party and our national office in Cardiff. We are proud of the fact that the Law Society of England and Wales was the first professional body to adopt a Welsh Language Policy approved by the Welsh Language Board.
This additional response deals with six topics
· Linguistic composition of Juries - Wales
· The Judiciary in Wales and the Welsh Language
· The impact of court closures in Wales
· Interpreters
· The Criminal Justice Board
· Local Criminal Justice Boards
I am grateful to the members of the Society's Welsh Affairs Working Party for providing the substance of this additional response.
David McIntosh
President
1. Lord Justice Auld reviewed some of the current debate on whether there should be bilingual juries, but expressed no definitive view.
2. The Law Society of England and Wales appreciates the difficulty of balancing two important principles which we support: the principle of random selection of juries and the principle that those citizens in Wales who wish to conduct their business in the Welsh language should be able to do so.
3. We agree with the view of Lord Justice Auld that a proposal concerning a power to order bilingual juries in particular cases is worthy of further consideration. We endorse his view that the question should be developed and examined with appropriate consultation in Wales. We agree that the aim of such a review should be to secure a solution that would encourage the greater use of the Welsh language while recognising the balance of English and Welsh speakers in the Principality; preserve the principle of random selection and, most importantly, ensure that each defendant has a fair trial.
4. We believe that the appropriate time for such a review to be addressed is as soon as the shape of any central Government proposals for criminal justice reforms becomes known and there is some certainty about what is to be implemented. The debate, as noted by Lord Justice Auld, is well advanced in Wales and has already been the subject of a seminar at the University of Wales during 2001.
5. The Law Society looks forward to continuing to take an active part in the debate and hopes there will be extensive consultation with all interested parties, including the Society's Welsh Affairs Working Party, on this matter.
6. In our first response, we expressed strong support for Lord Justice Auld's proposal that the Judicial Studies Board should be adequately resourced to meet the increasing training needs of members of the judiciary. There are, of course, particular issues relating to training of judges in Wales in the Welsh language.
7. The Law Society believes that the Lord Chancellor's Department should try to ensure that a sufficient number of Welsh language competent Recorders, Circuit Judges and High Court Judges for Wales are appointed to meet the need for trials conducted in Welsh.
8. If a policy were to be adopted of empanelling bilingual juries in appropriate cases, it would be an essential requirement that Welsh-language competent judges should preside over such cases.
9. It is important to note that, in our view, Welsh-language competence does not mean merely Welsh-speaking. A person fluent in his/her command of the Welsh language is not necessarily able to preside over a trial conducted in Welsh.
10. Members of the solicitor's profession in Wales have observed that there are several judges in Wales who understand Welsh well, but whose command of Welsh in terms of spoken and written skills is limited. There has already been at least one course within Wales to "polish" the Welsh language skills ("gloywi'r iaith") of members of the Judiciary in Wales.
11. We would press strongly for more courses, and more formally organised by the Judicial Studies Board in consultation with those who have the necessary language, translation, interpretation and training skills to deliver training appropriate to the needs of the judiciary.
12. We suggest that liaison with the University of Wales may be particularly useful as has happened so effectively with the Committee currently under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice John Thomas which has responsibility for the standardisation of legal terms in Welsh.
13. We hope that this would lead to the creation of a cadre of judges whose command of the Welsh language enables them to preside over trials conducted wholly (or mainly) through the unfiltered medium of the Welsh language thus ensuring greater fairness to a defendant who wishes his/her case to be tried through the medium of Welsh.
14. In its first response, the Law Society emphasised the need to take into account the public interest in its widest sense when considering court closure. We highlighted, in particular, the dangers of further social exclusion by denying ready access to justice to people who live in remote areas and/or who may already be marginalised.
15. These factors are particularly acute in Wales and have been exacerbated over the last five to ten years by many ill-considered court closures which have considerably reduced Welsh people's access to justice. There is also a widely held perception within Wales that the consultation undertaken on those closures was so limited as to be largely ineffective. The consultation process was neither transparent nor accessible and there is little indication that any account was taken of practitioner and client input into the process.
16. We are aware that a draft consultation paper on the topic of the future location and distribution of all Courts in Wales has been in existence since mid-2001. And, indeed, we are grateful that some members of the profession in Wales have been able to provide input to the draft.
17. We are concerned, however, that there is no sign of this paper being published for consultation. There is continuing uncertainty with regard to further court closures and the strategy being adopted for the future of the Court Service within Wales.
18. The Society believes it is in the public interest to determine a fundamental question as to whether the preferred approach should be elaborate "hi-tech" palais de justice centres, or more localised court centres, down to the use, even, of village halls supported by portable IT.
19. We fully endorse Recommendation 107 that decisions should be made in the interest of all involved in criminal justice system in their area and with the benefit of a cost benefit exercise taking the public interest in the widest sense into account (emphasis added).
20. Lord Justice Auld recommends the training and accreditation of interpreters to cover the basic of criminal investigation and court procedure, and that steps should be taken towards establishing a national scale of pay for interpreters.
21. The Society supports these recommendations and considers that any review concerning interpretation services in the courts should closely examine the successful operation of interpretation services in the courts in Wales.
22. Over the last five to ten years there has been immense progress so far as translation and interpretation services within Wales are concerned, and by now the standard achieved by interpreters within Wales is exceptionally high.
23. Further, the Review suggests that interpreters do not wish to work in the courts because of the nature of the work, the poor pay, and criticism of the quality of their services. This has not been the position in Wales with Welsh language interpreters. In Wales, the Court Service is now able to negotiate fees on an individual (case by case) or block basis with a number of specialised translation and interpretation service providers.
24. The Law Society also endorses Lord Justice Auld's recommendation for better facilities and access for interpreters.
25. As stated in our first Response, the Law Society of England and Wales supports the establishment of a Criminal Justice Board for England and Wales. We should also like to see a subsidiary Board for Wales with responsibility for ensuring that proper consideration is given to the distinct issues facing Wales and, in particular, its needs concerning the Welsh language and bilingualism generally.
26. We support the recommendations of the Review concerning the establishment of local boards. It will be important to ensure that the composition of these boards, where appropriate, reflects the bilingual nature of the communities they will serve. The local Boards must be seen to have primary responsibility for highlighting the needs and priorities of such local communities and be seen to have real influence, rather than being overridden by London.
[LCD ref: 483]