Going to court can be a difficult and stressful experience for all concerned. We work hard to give as much support and information as we can to all participants in the legal process, particularly the jurors, victims, witnesses and defendants.
| Target To secure a minimum 5% improvement in the level of satisfaction of users of the justice system by 2004, including that of victims and witnesses with their treatment in the criminal justice system (PSA 1). For the criminal courts, this target is supported by three SDA targets, in which we focus on our service to jurors, witnesses (including victims) and defendants. |
Jury service is a long-standing and important feature of the criminal justice system and an important public duty. Anyone aged 18-70 can be summoned to serve on a jury, with the exception of a few exempted groups. The Criminal Justice Bill, currently before Parliament, seeks to reduce the number of people who are or can be exempted from jury service.
In January 2000 a survey of jurors showed that 95% were satisfied or very satisfied with the treatment they had received at court, 42% being very satisfied. In keeping with this excellent service record, we set ourselves a high target.
| Target To maintain at 95% the proportion of jurors who are satisfied or very satisfied with their treatment in the criminal justice system, while increasing the number who are very satisfied by 5% by March 2002 and by 10% by March 2004 (SDA 1). |
A repeat of the same survey in early 2002 showed that 95.1% of jurors were still satisfied or very satisfied with their overall treatment while serving. However, the number of those very satisfied had fallen to 37.5%. Among the survey responses, we were very pleased that 45% of jurors were very satisfied with the information provided by the Court Service about jury service, and over 58% were very satisfied with the service they received at court. We will run the same survey again at the beginning of 2003 and expect to see an improvement in the overall satisfaction rates.
We also undertake a national survey of jurors and professionals using the court. This in-depth survey covers a range of issues including facilities and complaints handling. The overall satisfaction level of these users of the Crown Court was over 80%.
To improve people's experience of jury service still further, we have introduced two new initiatives: the Jury Summoning Bureau and virtual tours of the Crown Court. The Jury Summoning Bureau was launched in 2000 and is now the first port of call for all potential jurors needing information or seeking to defer or be excused from service. We plan that jurors will soon be able to correspond with the Bureau and reply to summonses by e-mail. Potential jurors are also able to take a virtual tour of some Crown Court centres - we launched a pilot in December 2001 at Southwark Crown Court and this is now being rolled out to other court centres.
The justice system, particularly in criminal cases, relies on people's willingness to give evidence in court. Witnesses are heard and cross-examined to establish the true facts of a case and ensure that justice is done. Giving evidence is a difficult task for many people and we aim to ease the process as much as we can, particularly for victims in criminal cases.
It disrupts people's lives to take time to appear in court. Witnesses should be inconvenienced as little as possible by having to wait or attend in court unnecessarily. We measure unnecessary attendance as the percentage of people who are called to court but do not give evidence.
In June 2002 the average waiting time in magistrates' courts stood at 1 hour and 25 minutes — five minutes less than in November 1997 when we first recorded this information. Unnecessary attendance has remained the same at 50% in the last 12 months.
Cracked trials (where the defendant offers an acceptable plea to the prosecution on the day of trial) and ineffective trials (where the case fails to proceed on the day of trial) are a major cause of witnesses attending unnecessarily. A new monitoring scheme to help magistrates' courts identify the reasons for trials cracking or being ineffective commenced data collection in April 2002. At the quarter ending September 2002 the national average for cracked trials stood at 37% and for ineffective trials 31%. This data will assist Magistrates' Courts Committees to identify and seek improvements in conjunction with the other criminal justice organisations.
In February 1999 the Home Secretary announced an increase in Victim Support's annual grant to enable it to extend its Crown Court Witness Service into the magistrates' courts. The overall target was for all magistrates' courts to have a service by April 2002. This was achieved with all courts having members appointed and providing the level of service which had been agreed with Victim Support and the Home Office.
Following the Speaking Up For Justice report published in 1998, vulnerable or intimidated witnesses were supported by special measures to help them give evidence in criminal proceedings.
These measures will allow vulnerable or intimidated witnesses to give their evidence from a room outside the courtroom via a TV link, or to have all their evidence (in chief and cross-examination) pre-recorded before the start of the trial. This will avoid witnesses having to enter the courtroom to give their evidence.
A total of 133 VIW rooms had been installed in magistrates' courts by the end of September 2002 for use by vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. The aim is to provide a good geographical spread of magistrates' courts in England and Wales with such equipment.
All 78 Crown Court Centres have TV link equipment installed and all have a Witness Service presence.
All new magistrates' court buildings provide separate waiting facilities for witnesses. We are continuing to fund local authorities to help them meet the costs of creating and improving facilities for witnesses attending magistrates' courts.
Similarly, separate facilities for witnesses are provided in Crown Court Centres where building constraints allow and the need for separate facilities to be provided has been included in the design guide for all new buildings. Additionally, ad hoc arrangements can and are made to ensure the segregation of vulnerable or intimidated witnesses.
All ten designated street crime courts have separate, segregated facilities for victims and witnesses including separate entrances or immediate segregation.
A defendant is someone who has been arrested, charged or summonsed for any criminal offence, but whose case has not yet finished in conviction, acquittal or some other outcome. A defendant is innocent unless he or she is proved beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty - this is one of the most important principles of English law.
At the Lord Chancellor's Department, we have a unique role in protecting the rights of defendants in the criminal justice system (CJS).
Our objective is to ensure that all defendants are given proper legal advice and support in order to present their cases and receive a fair trial.
| Target To achieve this objective, we have agreed a 'basket' of measures within SDA 4, to be completed by 2002. These measures are:
|
Of these four targets, we have met the first three. We were still collecting data for the duty solicitors measure in the last quarter of 2001-02, so this will not be available for targeting purposes until the first quarter of 2002-03. We are collecting and monitoring data in other areas of the CJS to find suitable new measures, which we will add to the basket. The outcome of the current Allnut review of data collection within the CJS should give us much more data on which to base our targets for development.
Reducing avoidable delay in the criminal justice system has remained a priority for the Government since its election in 1997.
The Government's 1997 manifesto included a specific pledge to halve the time taken from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders. By March 2002 the time taken had been halved from 142 to 71 days. This target was met in September 2001, well ahead of schedule, and the level has been maintained since.
The Government set the criminal justice system a Public Service Agreement objective in 2000.
| Target To reduce by 2004 the time from arrest to sentence or other disposal for all defendants by:
|
The local Criminal Justice Boards will propose cross-CJS targets for their areas to meet this objective, subject to ministerial approval.
Although no formal targets were set before April 2003, significant progress has been made. We have •reduced the average time taken for adult defendants in the magistrates' courts in indictable cases from charge/laying of information to completion from 77 days in 1999 to 63 in September 2002. For Youth Court cases, the fall was from 75 days to 58.
In the Crown Court by September 2002, 79.5% of defendants had their case commence within target times, exceeding the performance indicator of 78% for 2002-03.
It is important that the justice system is run effectively and efficiently. It is also vital that the public has confidence in the system. There is a new joint PSA target for the criminal justice system (Home Office and Crown Prosecution Service, as well as LCD) on confidence, to be achieved by 2006.
| Target To improve public confidence in the criminal justice system, including increasing that of ethnic minorities, and increasing year on year the satisfaction of victims and witnesses, whilst respecting the rights of defendants. (LCD PSA 2) |
This is a complex target and the measures are still being developed. The target places a focus on the people who become involved in the criminal justice system and requires us to ensure that their needs are met.
A CJS Confidence Task Force, comprising representatives from all three departments, has been set up to oversee the work towards this target. We are committed to working in partnership with other CJS agencies and we believe that public confidence will increase as a result of the improvements we are making to the justice system.
We have established a Confidence Co-ordinating Group in LCD, which provides a link between LCD, including the Court Service, and the CJS Confidence Task Force, and has responsibility for ensuring that LCD delivers its contribution to meeting the target.
LCD's contribution includes:
Staff from the Crown Court and magistrates' courts have been working with CJS partners to develop a programme of work to narrow the justice gap. The justice gap is the difference between the number of crimes which are recorded and the number which result in their perpetrator being brought to justice.
| Target The Government has set a new target to bring 1.2 million offences to justice by 2005-06. This will represent an improvement in performance of about 17% (PSA 4) over the 1.02 million offences brought to justice in 2001-02. |
The Narrowing the Justice Gap Programme was launched in October 2002 and is aimed at tackling the justice gap by introducing strategies to:
The first priority of the court system is to deliver justice, but justice must also be delivered efficiently. To do this, and to use our resources effectively, we are tackling problems such as courtroom over-capacity and running costs.
The capacity of the court system is the total number of hours during which cases can be heard in courtrooms. Over-capacity is the percentage of this available time that is not used.
| Target To reduce courtroom over-capacity by 10% by March 2002 (SDA 46). |
During the 12-month period April 2001 to March 2002 courtroom over-capacity was 36.7%, a decrease of 14.6% compared to the 2000—01 figure, exceeding the 10% target.
As reported in 2001-02 there was minimal usable space on the Court Service estate. That remained the position for 2002-03. Opportunities to reduce the number of locations will be taken forward within the Estates Rationalisation initiative, where there was significant activity in the year producing local accommodation plans covering all areas of Court Service activity. Implementation of these plans has commenced. In 2002-03 we have moved Altrincham County Court into Trafford Magistrates' Court, Berwick-upon-Tweed County Court into Berwick-upon-Tweed Magistrates' Court, and Goole County Court into Goole Magistrates' Court (SDA 48).
By combining different court functions in one location, we can save on running costs and generate income by selling or leasing vacant accommodation. We have already achieved our initial target and continue to seek further opportunities with all new schemes. There is now minimal vacant space in our estate.
| Target To achieve an average annual increase of 3% in Crown courtroom utilisation in the period 2001-04 (SDA 47). |
Crown Court utilisation for the period April 2001 to March 2002 was 72.8%, which not only exceeds the 67.8% target for March 2002 but also the 68.9% and 71.9% targets for March 2003 and March 2004 respectively. For the period April to June 2002 Crown Court utilisation was 68.9%, which although a decrease compared to the 2001-02 figure, matches the target set for March 2003. Past performance suggests that this figure will increase as the year progresses so we are in line to meet the March 2003 target.
During 2001-02, the cost of one day's sitting in a Crown Court was estimated to be £709 per hour, not including legal assistance.
| Target To reduce by 3% every year in real terms the unit cost of an operational courtroom hour in the Crown Court (SDA 51). |
This year's estimate suggests that we have already achieved a reduction of 2.2% and the final outcome might well be greater. The Crown Court is sitting 7,000 extra days this year. This increases efficiency, as we are making better use of our courtroom capacity, even though the costs of staff and court reporting also increase correspondingly.
Achieving value for money includes improving the service as well as saving money. We have a policy of publishing comparative performance tables on key targets for magistrates' courts. We also encourage better performance through a new system for distributing funding (SDA 43). Magistrates' Courts Committees can use the information on performance to identify improvements for their own efficiency and customer services.
Warrants are issued by magistrates' courts when a person who has received a summons fails to attend. In many cases, the summons is for a failure to comply with a community sentence, for which the offender will often be fined. By enforcing the warrants, we increase the effectiveness of the criminal justice system and also collect revenue from fines that would otherwise be lost.
The Department is committed to increasing the effectiveness of fine enforcement and has undertaken a multi-strand approach to boost the levels of fine enforcement nationwide. Facets under this approach include:
The Department will also be reporting to Ministers on a monthly basis outlining the latest position and progress.
The Courts Bill, which is currently before the House of Lords, contains proposals for improving the collection of fines, compensation and costs. The Bill will make administrative staff employed by the courts (fines officers) responsible for managing the collection and enforcement of financial penalties ordered by the courts. Fines officers will administer collection orders made by the court, under a new fines collection scheme. This provides for a discount for prompt payment and an increase on default (which may be waived if the defaulter adheres to new payment terms), and provides new sanctions, e.g. vehicle clamping, registration of the debt, with which to tackle persistent default. Under the scheme, fines officers will have discretion to vary payment terms and choose the most appropriate means of enforcing the collection order. The system will ensure that it is in the interests of the offender to stay in touch with the court during the 'lifetime' of the fine (allowing the fines officer to confirm contact details at each stage).
[Please see the correction details relating to the information contained under this heading]
Asylum appeal cases are handled by the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA). There are two stages to the appeal process. At the first stage, a single legally qualified adjudicator hears the case and considers the evidence from the appellant and the Home Secretary and comes to a decision. When this decision is delivered, either party can then seek leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. If leave to appeal is granted, the three-member panel considers the grounds of the appeal against the adjudicator's decision.
| Target In terms of asylum, to increase the proportion of appeals completed within four months to 65% from 2002-03 (SDA 28). |
Of the cases received between 1 April and 30 June 2001, 44.8% went through both tiers of the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) within 17 weeks. We aim, from 2002-03, to raise this to 65%.
The IAA will increase its processing capacity from 4,000 asylum cases per month to 6,000 from November 2002. This expansion involves providing 50 additional rooms for hearings, in the region of 100 additional full-time adjudicators and the necessary administrative staff, interpreters and legal representatives.
We are introducing initiatives to improve our performance. We are setting up dedicated listing offices in major hearing centres to manage cases directly and we are working to reduce unnecessary adjournments. A pilot scheme on judicial deployment is under way at Hatton Cross: adjudicators who sit in court on one day are then allocated the next day to write their determinations so that cases are decided as quickly as possible.
| Target To reduce in real terms the unit cost of an asylum appeal by an average of 3% per year (SDA 50). |
We have reduced the costs of asylum appeal by clearing cases more quickly and reducing administration costs. The target cost for 2001-02, not including accommodation and overheads, is £1,025; current performance suggests that the actual cost will be well below this, in the range of £750 to £900.
Following extensive consultation with stakeholders, including those connected with the criminal justice system and members of the public, the Government published its response to the Auld1 and Halliday2 Reports in the White Paper Justice for All, accompanied by an annex Justice for All - Responses to the Auld and Halliday Reports. These were published in July 2002. The position set out there remains the Government's position for modernising the criminal justice system over the coming years.
The Government's immediate programme for reform is clearly reflected in the Criminal Justice Bill and the Courts Bill, both currently going through Parliament. In parallel, we are implementing a number of administrative programmes across the three criminal justice departments. The main parts of the programme are as follows:
Many of the 55 recommendations in the Halliday Report for review of the sentencing framework for England and Wales require legislation, and are being taken forward in the Criminal Justice Bill. They include a new sentencing framework, a single generic community sentence, heavier sentences for persistent offending, reforming short custodial sentences, changes to the calculation of remand time, sentencers giving reasons for passing a sentence, licence conditions lasting until the endpoint of sentence, administrative recall to prison, creation of the Sentencing Guidelines Council, and many more.
For the other Halliday recommendations which do not require legislation, we are:
Reflecting the main recommendations of the Auld Report, the Criminal Justice Bill includes reforms in eligibility for jury service, alternatives to trial by judge and jury, changes in appeal procedures, the giving to the police of some responsibility for charging, changes in the rules for bail and changes in rules of evidence.
The administrative setting up of a National Criminal Justice Board to replace all the existing national planning and operational bodies reflects other Auld recommendations. We have already simplified and strengthened the present machinery. The Prime Minister established a CJS Cabinet Committee, to oversee delivery of the Government's policies for the management and reform of the criminal justice system. This is supported by the National Criminal Justice Board, which includes representatives of all the criminal justice agencies, the police, judiciary and CJS Ministers. Local Criminal Justice Boards are up and running in shadow form and are on target to go live in April 2003.
Legislation to give effect to the Auld recommendations for unified administration of the courts and for court security is being taken forward in the Courts Bill. A programme to create the new agency has been established and implementation is not expected before April 2005.
While the Government has not pursued the Auld recommendations for a unified criminal court, we are effecting closer integration between magistrates' courts and the Crown Court, through a package of measures in the Courts Bill. These will bring about the same benefits identified by the relevant Auld recommendations.
Creation of a Criminal Procedure Rule Committee, taking forward the Auld recommendations, is included in the Courts Bill and administrative arrangements to set up a full time secretariat are in hand.
The trilateral Case Preparation Project aims to tackle the effectiveness of preparation and progression of cases in all criminal courts from charge to disposal. Many of the proposals reflect Sir Robin Auld's recommendations and are being taken forward administratively. Pilots are to be launched in the spring.
Judicial personnel issues reflected in the Auld recommendations are mainly being taken forward administratively. They include:
While we have not taken up Sir Robin Auld's proposal that we build a new integrated IT system, we have recognised some advantages and have preferred the alternative approach of joining together the existing and developing IT systems in a staged development, using an 'information walkway' to link individual systems. This alternative is consistent with our approach to large IT programmes, as set out in the Cabinet Office report Successful IT - Modernising Government in Action. This report strongly recommends a modular and evolutionary rather than a 'big bang' approach to IT systems development and integration. Our approach will make sure that money already invested in IT systems will not go to waste, and offers the best balance of benefit, cost and risk avoidance.
In March 2003, the Lord Chancellor announced a wide-ranging reform of the tribunals system, which is the background of the administrative justice system. There are some 80 different tribunals in England and Wales administered by various government departments and local authorities. They deal with over a million cases each year, resolving disputes that affect almost every area of people's lives, including their income (tax and social security), their families and children's education (child support, special education needs, asylum and immigration) and their health (mental health).
Following publication of the review of tribunals by Sir Andrew Leggatt, the Government has decided that the best way to take forward tribunal reform is to bring together most non-devolved central government tribunals into a single service. The service will reflect the needs and specialisms of individual jurisdictions and will in particular respect the differences between party vs party and citizen vs state tribunals. It will be a distinct part of the justice system, accountable to the Lord Chancellor. Initially the new service will be based on the ten largest tribunals. Of these, five already form part of the Lord Chancellor's Department, while the remaining five will transfer to the LCD from their current parent departments over the period 2004-2008. Where appropriate, other smaller tribunals will also join the new service.
The Government will publish a White Paper later in 2003 on the reform and modernisation of the tribunals justice system within an increasingly unified tribunals service.
2 Making Punishments Work. Report of a Review of the Sentencing Framework for England and Wales by John Halliday. Published 2001.
To read documents in 
format you will need a copy of the freely available Adobe
Acrobat Reader.