2.1 DCA is working closely with the Home Office, the Crown Prosecution Service, and other agencies throughout the criminal justice system to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour. This effort requires a system that works effectively and commands the respect and confidence of the people it serves. More detail on the criminal justice system, what it does and how the various parts fit together can be found at www.cjs.gov.uk. Our goal is to contribute towards building an efficient and responsive criminal justice system, which brings more of the guilty before the courts, while supporting the victims of crime and acquitting the innocent.
2.2 To achieve this, there is a cross-Government strategy to ensure that:
2.3 DCA's contribution to achieving this strategy is based on the principle that the key to delivering a better system is better preparation, better trials and better enforcement:
2.4 In 2000/01, 5.17m crimes were recorded, but only 1.02m
crimes resulted in an offender being brought to justice. This is the justice
gap, the difference between the number of offences recorded and the number
of offences for which an offender receives either a caution,
a conviction or has the offence taken into consideration by the court. To
achieve a reduction in this justice gap a Criminal Justice System Public
Service Agreement target was developed for the SR2002 period (2003/04 to
2005/06). The target is to improve the delivery of justice by
increasing the number of crimes for which an offender is brought to justice
to 1.2m by 2005/06; with an improvement in all criminal justice system areas,
a greater increase in the worse-performing areas and a reduction in the
proportion of ineffective trials (PSA target 1).
2.5 DCA's main contribution towards the achievement of the target is by ensuring that the criminal courts deliver the most effective and efficient processes with the resources at their disposal. This is being done through:
2.6 To ensure that there is sufficient capacity in the courts to meet the increased workload generated by bringing more offences to justice, we have further increased sittings in the courts. The number of sitting days in the Crown Court has been increased from 98,500 in 2002/03 to 101,500 in 2003/04, and has projected 104,200 days for 2004/05. Courtroom capacity has been restricted during the rollout of new IT infrastructure (the LINK Project - see Chapter 5) but this has been successfully managed by moving cases between courts to use spare capacity.
2.7 Similar procedures have been undertaken to increase capacity in the magistrates' courts. Potential sitting hours have been increased from 1,216,261 in 2002/03 to 1,241,191 in 2003/04.
2.8 A robust performance management framework has been established which identifies on a regular basis the performance of individual courts and also each of the Local Criminal Justice Boards in respect of ineffective trials (see www.cjs.gov.uk for a description and links to how these local boards work in each of 42 local criminal justice areas in England and Wales). This has enabled DCA to work closely with local managers to establish the cause of any problems and identify remedial action.
2.9 One particular area of success in the last year has been with 'overlisting', where a court overbooks to allow for an earlier trial not proceeding on the day and thus leading to ineffective trials. This success has been achieved through the Crown Court setting a target that no more than 3% of all cases listed should become ineffective due to overlisting. This target has been met for 2003/04. Work is currently under way to put in place similar measures for the magistrates' courts.
Better preparation, better trials and better enforcement |
2.10 In order to improve the process from arrest to conviction a national cross agency reform programme has begun to tackle the issue. The Effective Trial Management Programme was set up to deliver a step change reduction in ineffective trials by introducing a suite of measures, which will begin to deliver in 2005/06. The aim of the programme is to reduce the proportion of ineffective trials by:
Ensuring people are protected from crime and anti-social
behaviour |
2.11 In the next two years, there will be a number of key pilot projects, leading to full rollout in year 2005/06. Any good practice identified during the pilots that can be replicated will be, as it emerges. The programme has now transferred to the cross-Government Criminal Justice Performance Directorate as part of wider work on criminal case management.
2.12 Until such time as the benefits from the programme can be realised, the focus will be on improving the ineffective trial rate by local initiatives as outlined in individual Local Criminal Justice Boards' plans. Boards will have the lead responsibility for delivery of their local targets both for narrowing the justice gap and ineffective trial reduction.
2.13 The target for the number of offences brought to justice in 2003/04 was to increase the number from 1.017m to 1.104m, a national increase of 8.57%. Boards have their own local targets (agreed by the National Criminal Justice Board - the body chaired by Government Ministers, with representation from the main national agencies, and responsible for supporting local boards to deliver the criminal justice system PSA targets) which, when aggregated, equal the national target.
2.14 Similarly, each local board has a locally set ineffective trial rate target, which when aggregated will deliver a substantial part of the national target (a reduction from the current ineffective trial rate from 24% to17% for the Crown Court and from 31% to 23% for the magistrates' courts by March 2006). The local targets have been reviewed on a quarterly basis by the Criminal Justice Performance Directorate and actions undertaken to improve performance. In addition, 13 of the 42 local criminal justice areas have been identified as key deliverers and their performance is monitored monthly.
2.15 Substantial progress has been made towards achieving the target of 1.2m offenders being brought to justice by 2005/06. The latest available figure at (November 2003) is 1.096m. Against that, the Crown Court ineffective trial rate has improved by over 5%. Now at 18.8 % (quarter to January 2004), the rate has already achieved the interim target for 2003/04. Similar progress has been made in the magistrates' courts where performance has improved by 2% to 29.0% in the quarter to January 2004. Both courts are on profile to meet the capacity targets.
2.16 Initiatives are being piloted in Essex, Bedfordshire, Manchester, North Wales and West Midlands (as part of the Effective Trial Management Programme) to improve case management and reduce the proportion of ineffective trials. For example, Essex and Bedfordshire are testing the effectiveness of offering fixed appointment court hearings. Other initiatives have focused on cases involving domestic violence and improving the way the police and Crown Prosecution Service work together to charge suspects with specific offences and bring cases to court (see www.cjs.gov.uk).
2.17 A monitoring scheme in the Crown Court was launched nationally on 1 September 2003, to formalise procedures on identifying the reasons for ineffective trials and thereby enable focused action to be taken on improving performance. An investigation into the underlying causes for the main reasons of ineffective trials in the Crown Court has been undertaken. The main reasons for ineffective trials in all criminal courts are:
Crown Court
Magistrates' court
2.18 New targets for the 2004/05 ineffective trial rate have been agreed (Crown Court 18.5%, magistrates' court 24.5%). These will now be disaggregated to individual criminal justice system areas. Future priorities will include working with Crown Court to address the issues raised by the main causes and continuing to support each of the 42 criminal justice system areas to maximise their contributions. Best practice on effective trial management will be rolled out using lessons learnt from the 13 priority criminal justice system areas.
2.19 A crucial factor in the success of the criminal justice system is the level of confidence that the public has in the system. The joint PSA target for the criminal justice system is 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, while respecting the rights of defendants (PSA target 2).
2.20 Public confidence is being measured through a question in the British Crime Survey on effectiveness of the criminal justice system in bringing people who commit crimes to justice. The target requires a statistically significant increase (1% point). Ethnic minority confidence is being measured through the same question and requires 3% point increase. Victim and witness satisfaction will be measured through new questions in the British Crime Survey, with a target of a 3% point increase on the baseline (October 2003 - March 2004).
2.21 Work on the SR2000 target, to improve the level of confidence in the criminal justice system by 2004, including that of ethnic minority communities, is being taken forward as part of this SR2002 target.
2.22 By reducing the number of ineffective trials, the Effective Trials Management Programme (see above) will provide greater certainty to victims and witnesses about the listing of their cases and thus secure higher witness attendance. DCA is also contributing to the national strategy for victims and witnesses, including the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, which will, subject to enactment, introduce a statutory code of practice for victims.
2.23 DCA has also contributed to the development and launch of a cross-criminal justice system communications strategy and staff engagement programmes, to spread good practice and encourage increased joint working to help improve the service provided to the public, and to assist local criminal justice boards in delivering their confidence plans.
2.24 DCA is currently working with the Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Office on a pilot community justice centre. The aim is to provide a multi-purpose community building bringing services and facilities to local people, including a court which will deal with low level offending and anti-social behaviour. The guiding principles of the community justice centre are:
2.25 North Liverpool has been identified as the site for the pilot and a local steering group has been established in Liverpool to deliver the programme locally. It includes representatives from criminal justice agencies, the judiciary, court staff and the community. A local project manager has been employed to co-ordinate the work. This pilot is complemented by the Consumer Strategy work on community justice (see Chapter 5).
2.26 We are also engaged in delivering a raft of DCA specific initiatives. There are various programmes of work to modernise the infrastructure of the courts, including building programmes and IT. They will facilitate the Court Service (and eventually the new Unified Courts Agency) in improving both its own performance and the services it provides to its customers, including victims, witnesses, defendants, and legal professionals, as well as to others in the criminal justice system such as police and probation officers. Examples include (more detail on these initiatives can be found in Chapter 5):
2.27 The Court Service has a strong record in terms of customer focus, with 68 of 72 Crown Court Centres already awarded Chartermark, demonstrating excellence in customer service. The remaining four centres had made applications by January 2004.
2.28 We have introduced Special Measures for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, enabling them to give evidence in court without fear through use of screens, live TV links, or removal of wigs and gowns. The Witness Service (run by Victim Support) is now available at all magistrates' courts, adding to the service provided in the Crown Court. Dedicated witness suites have been arranged in all Street Crime Courts. Further work to improve court facilities will be rolled out as funds become available.
Case study: videolinks for vulnerable victims and witnesses |
DCA led a joint project with the Youth Justice Board and the Home Office to provide a further 144 videolinks in magistrates' courts across the country for vulnerable victims and witnesses. This included those designated Street Crime Areas. Many of the links in the magistrates' courts are networked so that a witness can, if this is more convenient, give evidence from a nearby town or even a different part of the country. At Leicester Magistrates' Court the videolink link was installed in the Victim Support office a quarter of a mile away from the courthouse which will enable the witness to give their evidence without having to attend the court, which some witnesses may have found stressful.
 |
2.29 The effective use and subsequent enforcement of financial and non-financial penalties is crucial to maintaining confidence in the criminal justice system. DCA, in conjunction with the Magistrates' Courts Service is committed to improving criminal enforcement performance in order to achieve this. An enforcement programme is in place to deliver sustained improvement in criminal enforcement performance within the 42 Magistrates' Courts Committees in England and Wales. It aims to ensure a joined-up approach to delivering an effective enforcement process, which will uphold the authority of the courts and send a clear message to offenders that disregard for the orders of the court will not be tolerated. The programme currently consists of four main work streams:
Criminal justice agencies working together |
Case study: Operation Payback Operation Payback, a nationwide fine enforcement initiative, was undertaken in March 2003 by magistrates' courts in partnership with the police. The operation was supported by a comprehensive national media and advertising campaign. Emerging results from the operation are positive with 35 out of the 42 Magistrates' Courts Committees taking part in the operation, and the remaining seven committees conducting a similar operation in the weeks that follow. The concept was based on similar initiatives undertaken by several Magistrates' Courts' Committees, that successfully conducted a blitz on outstanding warrants involving court enforcement officers, the police, magistrates, their legal advisors and Magistrates' Courts' Committee staff. For example a blitz initiative conducted in the West Yorkshire Magistrates' Courts Committee area contributed to a significant increase in the collection of financial penalties. Press coverage was positive and staff members detected a changed attitude among defaulters, resulting in payments being made earlier. The benefits sought from Operation Payback, both at a local and a national level are:
 |
2.30 Considerable progress has been made in recent months showing an improvement in nationwide Magistrates' Courts Committee performance. The programme has already successfully implemented an action plan covering: cessation of write-offs; a new statutory framework for fine enforcement (Courts Act 2003), and an incentives package for Magistrates' Courts Committees and their staff. The pilots will be evaluated at the end of 2004 and used to develop future enforcement practice.
2.31 Evidence suggests that educating and informing the public about the court system is key to improving confidence. Recent research by the polling organisation MORI found that confidence in the courts is a key predictor for overall confidence. It also found that the biggest reason for lack of confidence in the courts was a perception of lenient sentencing. Increasing public knowledge and understanding of the court system and of sentencing are therefore likely to be the keys to improving public confidence in the courts.
2.32 DCA has continued its association with the Citizenship Foundation and has produced materials for schools that link to the national curriculum on citizenship. Magistrates and Schools was launched in September 2003 (Judges in Schools was launched in February 2002). We sponsor an annual Mock Trial competition for schoolchildren, run by the Citizenship Foundation in partnership with the Magistrates' Association.
2.33 DCA also supports the Magistrates in the Community programme, in which around 3,000 magistrates each year volunteer to talk to local schools and community groups about their work, or participate in court open days. Both magistrates' courts and Crown Courts also hold open days, which attract substantial numbers of visitors. Victims, witnesses and jurors can now familiarise themselves with court buildings and procedures online.
2.34 To meet concerns that have been expressed about lack of consistency, the Government has created the Sentencing Guidelines Council, established in March 2004. The Council will create and monitor a comprehensive set of guidelines for all offences. It will enable all courts and practitioners to follow a common structure and to approach a case from a constructive starting point, applying detailed guidelines to determine the appropriate sentence.
2.35 Implementation of parts of the Courts Act 2003 in 2005 will provide for a Unified Courts Agency, with new local courts boards, which will include representatives from the local community (see Chapter 5). There is potential for cases to be heard at the most convenient location rather than being delayed and transferred because of existing complex rules. Work contributing to improving confidence of black and ethnic minority communities is also covered in Chapter 5.
Redressing the balance between defendants and
victims |
2.36 Legal aid helps defendants to get advice and access to justice. Criminal Defence Service Funding enables people to defend themselves against criminal accusations, where the interests of justice require that they get help doing so, at public expense. This is important, since people need to be confident not only that those who have committed offences are brought to justice, but also that those who are innocent or against whom the cases cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt are acquitted.
2.37 Spending on criminal legal aid has risen year on year for the past five years. It has gone up from £734m in 1997/98 to approximately £1, 096m in 2002/03. The number of cases funded by legal aid has risen by 41% in magistrates' courts and by 17% in the Crown Court since 2000/01. If unaddressed, this increased demand on the legal aid budget is forecast to continue year on year and could put pressure on the allocation of funding to those in most need of it.
2.38 In the 2003 Queen's Speech it was announced that DCA intended to bring forward a draft Criminal Defence Service Bill. This legislation would, if enacted, help bring the cost of legal aid under control by providing for better management of grant and focus the limited resources available for funding more closely on the people who need them most.
2.39 The Government also announced on 2 February 2004 a series of measures aimed at focusing criminal legal aid on more serious offences. The measures follow a full consultation and are designed to preserve legal aid funds in order to ensure that those in need receive legal aid.
2.40 The demands on the family justice system are changing in response to changes in people's lifestyles. The past few decades have seen more women in the workplace and an increased role of men in their children's upbringing. The divorce rate has increased six-fold in the last 40 years. Current trends suggest four out of ten new marriages will end in divorce and one in four children has parents who get divorced. Over half of divorced mothers and fathers will remarry or re-partner, forming a step-family. There is an increasing trend towards cohabitation and sequential cohabitation. Cohabiting couples are nearly five times more likely to split up than married couples. There is a rise in the number of children born outside of marriage (40% of all children born in 2001).
2.41 DCA's efforts during 2003/04 to improve the way we deal with these changing demands have centred on a consumer-focused vision for the future. At present, in-court solutions focus significant system resources on resolving the issues of a single family. Out-of-court solutions are typically less resource intensive. The challenge is to achieve a system which provides proportionate resolution, matching the intervention to the scale and nature of a particular problem and providing the right person, with the right skills, to solve a particular issue. Our Consumer Strategy Review (Chapter 5) reflects this and has focused in particular on those experiencing relationship breakdown and domestic violence.
2.42 The role of the family courts is vital in protecting children, putting their best interests first, and - in deciding arrangements for their future - helping to provide the stable and loving homes they need. The family courts help those who care for children focus on what is best for the child, putting children's needs above their own. By speeding up decisions on care and adoption we will minimise the number of changes in foster care arrangements that children go through.
2.43 A key initiative in reducing delay is the new Protocol for Judicial Case Management in Public Law Children Act Cases. The protocol, introduced in November 2003, changes the whole approach to case management of family cases and gives a new clarification of focus to all those involved in care cases. It gives detailed guidance and timescales on the steps to be taken at each stage of the case. In this way we aim to ensure the early identification and narrowing of issues; encourage a proactive and co-operative approach to case management among judges and lawyers; reduce the number of directions hearings; use experts in a more focused way; and reduce the length of final hearings. The collaborative working which has underpinned the development of the protocol is an example of DCA's commitment to joined-up working across disciplines and public sector organisations.
2.44 The full impact of the protocol on performance will take time to be seen. DCA and DfES are working closely to monitor the impact of the protocol. In the meantime a range of national initiatives are being undertaken in a programme of work to tackle delay in family cases. This includes allocating 2,000 extra family judge sitting days in 2003/04, encouraging greater co-operation among all the Government agencies involved (eg Children and Family Courts Advisory Service, Local Authorities, and Magistrates' Family Proceedings Courts), and working with the Department of Health Adoption Task Force to identify and tackle causes of delay. This will also provide a source of advice and expertise to inform development of future policy.
2.45 We will also be working to implement the Adoption and Children Act 2002. This introduces new arrangements for domestic and inter-country adoption and measures to reduce delay, both in terms of case management and by the use of specialist adoption centres and procedures which improve efficiency and consistency. It is the first comprehensive review in a quarter of a century and will replace the Adoption Act 1976. The regulations, court rules and guidance required to implement the core of the Act should be in place by the end of 2004. After a period for preparation and training, we expect the legislation to come into force in September 2005.
2.46 From an international perspective, DCA is responsible for maintaining and developing treaties and legislation in which the UK participates in co-operation with our international partners. In 2003/04, 180 children were abducted to the UK from Hague Convention countries and 233 children were abducted from the UK.
Improving access to justice, especially for the
vunerable |
The Child Abduction Unit, based in the Official Solicitor's office, is the Central Authority for England and Wales and is responsible for administering the work of the 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction.
2.47 Reunite is the International Child Abduction Charity which assists the parent from whom a child has been abducted. They run a helpline, training and awareness campaigns and facilitate international co-operation. During 2003/04, DCA funded Reunite with £147, 000.
2.48 We will implement the Council Regulation EC 2201/2003 on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility by March 2005.
2.49 We want to make sure that victims of domestic violence have a swift and effective route to protection and perpetrators of violence are brought to justice. And we want to make sure that children can have satisfactory contact with both parents where this is in the best interests of the child and is safe for all family members.
2.50 DCA made a substantial contribution to the consultation paper Safety and Justice: The Government's Proposals on Domestic Violence, published June 2003. This was followed by the introduction, in the House of Lords, of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill in December 2003. For example, the Bill will include measures that:
Better support for vunerable and intimidated witnesses |
2.51 Work has begun to increase victim confidence in advice and remedial action currently available and give offenders clear signals that they cannot get away with repeat victimisation (see Consumer Strategy in Chapter 5).
2.52 Ancillary relief is the process where the court makes an order concerning property and maintenance following divorce. Women are often the disadvantaged party financially and the making of appropriate financial provision following divorce is even more important where there are children. In June 2000, new rules were brought into force for handling ancillary relief applications in the county courts. The new procedure introduced a financial dispute resolution hearing intended to assist the parties to reach agreement where possible. It also introduced a new requirement for solicitors to submit costs estimates to the court so that the parties were made aware of legal costs incurred to date and the court put in a better position to monitor and control costs. The new rules were given time to bed down and were evaluated in the first half of 2003.
2.53 During 2003/04, file research was conducted in 34 courts using a sample of over 1,300 cases. Cases conducted under the old rules were compared with those conducted under the new rules. The evaluation demonstrated that the new rules had reduced the average duration of cases from 56 weeks under the old rules to 38 weeks under the new procedure. Under the new procedure, 36% of cases settled within 24 weeks of the application date compared with only 19% of cases under the old procedure. There was also a significant increase in cases settling from 25 to 34 weeks, up from 20% to 30% of cases. There was also a significant fall in the proportion of cases taking over 75 weeks, falling from 24% under the old rules to only 5% under the new rules.
2.54 The reduced average duration of cases and the significant increase in cases settled in under 35 weeks means that the majority of the parties see an end to the stress and uncertainty of litigation far sooner than under the old procedures.
2.55 Responsibility for Marriage and Relationship Support (the policy on child contact following family breakdown and parenting support) were transferred from DCA to DfES as part of the machinery of Government changes in June 2003. In addition, responsibility for the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service was transferred to DfES in January 2004. Transferred responsibilities include the Government's response to the Children Act Sub-Committee report Making Contact Work, Child Contact Centres, parental responsibility and providing services that support children and families in family court proceedings in England and Wales. All these areas impact on the work of the courts, and officials from DCA and DfES have worked closely together on policy development and implementation. See the DfES Departmental Report 2003/04 (see www.dfes.gov.uk). See also Chapter 3 for DCA's work to improve public access to the justice system (including our performance at delivering PSA target 6).
2.56 A key area of work for DCA, in relation to protecting and empowering the vulnerable, is the preparation of a Mental Incapacity Bill. A draft Bill was published in June 2003 and underwent pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Select Committee. DCA welcomed the Committee's report and produced a response to it in February 2004. The Bill aims to provide a clear, simple decision-making framework to ensure that people can maintain a maximum level of autonomy. The Bill will also allow people to choose someone who can make decisions for them when they cannot do so themselves.
2.57 The Government introduced the Civil Partnership Bill to Parliament on 31 March 2004. This Bill proposes a new legal status of 'civil partnership' providing a range of rights and responsibilities for same-sex couples who choose to register, in the same way that opposite sex couples can through marriage.
2.58 Civil Partnerships will support and encourage committed same-sex relationships and their families, underlining the Government's aim to promote stable relationships. The Women and Equality Unit in the Department of Trade and Industry is leading on the Bill and DCA has an important role in relation to rights and responsibilities that arise when a partnership is dissolved.
2.59 Opposite sex couples are not covered by the civil partnership scheme as they are already able to have their relationship recognised through marriage, an option not available to same-sex couples. We recognise however that there are concerns about the potential vulnerability of opposite sex cohabitants, particularly in light of the high level of misunderstanding over the existence of 'common law marriage' for unmarried couples.
2.60 DCA is leading a cross-Government working group to explore how best to dispel the myth of common law marriage. Frequent misconceptions that we aim to dispel include the assumption that long-standing cohabitants have the same inheritance rights, on the death of their partner, as their married counterparts. We are also planning a public awareness campaign this year where we will work with the voluntary sector in order to raise public awareness about the legal position cohabitants.
2.61 DCA helps people to find early, quick, and accessible information and promote greater use, where appropriate, of low-cost ways to resolve disputes. Most people are apprehensive about using the courts and lack information on alternative ways to settle a dispute. That is why we have a PSA target to reduce the proportion of disputes which are resolved by resort to the courts (PSA target 3).
2.62 The availability of less adversarial options has improved in recent years, especially following the changes to the court rules (Civil Procedure Rules) introduced in 1999. These reforms followed Lord Woolf's reports on 'Access to Justice'. The main aims of Lord Woolf's reforms were: to improve access to justice and reduce the cost of litigation; to reduce the complexity of the rules and modernise terminology; and to remove unnecessary distinctions of practice and procedure. We are committed to further improve access to justice, especially for the socially excluded. This requires us to develop alternatives to court-based methods which are quicker, cheaper, less adversarial and better at addressing behavioural and cultural changes in our communities.
2.63 To this end, DCA has agreed the following performance targets with HM Treasury.
| Performance targets | Latest performance (for year to Dec 2003) | |
| i. | To reduce the amount of non-family claims issued in the civil courts by 11.8%, from a baseline of 1.790m (2002/03). | 1.751m (2.2%) |
| ii. | To reduce the proportion of cases allocated for hearing (once a defence has been filed) that are resolved by a hearing, from a baseline of 48.9% (2002/03) to 47%. | 43.3% |
| iii. | To reduce the number of hearings by 9.2% from a baseline of 71,300 (2002/03). | 67,900 (4.8%) |
| iv. | For private law family orders made by consent to increase the proportion of contact and ancillary relief orders made by consent by 2.8%, from a baseline of 70.6%. | 70.5% |
A judicial process that is efficient, fair and
quick |
2.64 There are two strands to our work to meet these targets:
2.65 We continue to encourage parties to settle their disputes before going to court. Housing Disrepair and Disease and Illness pre-action protocols were included in the 33rd update to the Civil Procedures Rules published on 24 September 2003 and came into force in December 2003. There are now eight specific pre-action protocols in force.
2.66 We have introduced new rules for recovering fixed legal costs for claims of £10,000 or less arising from road traffic accidents primarily involving personal injury. This should significantly reduce litigation on legal costs in this area and more widely across the personal injury sector. It is expected that around 90% (360,000) of all road traffic accident claims involving personal injury will fall under the fixed costs provisions. We are also introducing fixed success fees for road traffic accident personal injury claims brought under a conditional fee agreement which should further stabilise the personal injury claims market and reduce the number of disputes over legal costs that end up in the court.
2.67 As part of the Government's commitment to resolving disputes without going to court, in 2001 all Government Departments and agencies pledged to use alternative dispute resolution where appropriate and when the other party accepts it. In the financial year April 2002 to March 2003, alternative dispute resolution was used or attempted in 617 disputes across Government - a significant increase over the first year, when the process had been used or attempted in just 49 disputes. To June 2003, Departments reported overall estimated savings of more than £17m under the pledge.
Case studies: court-based mediation schemes Mediation sessions Successful schemes are currently in operation at Birmingham, Central London, Exeter and Guilford, with a new scheme recently established for South and West Wales. The schemes operate by offering parties in cases exceeding £5,000 an opportunity to attend a mediation session. The sessions are organised by the court, and take place on court premises. Similar schemes exist at the Commercial Court and Court of Appeal. Automatic referral In addition to the existing mediations session schemes, we are in the process of testing a number of ways in which the courts can actively encourage mediation to take place. An automatic referral scheme is being piloted at Central London Civil Justice Centre. Under the scheme, a selection of appropriate cases allocated to the fast and multi-tracks are automatically referred to mediation. The standard directions for trial are suspended while a mediation appointment is arranged. Parties can, of course, optout of the scheme if they feel that pursuing mediation would be fruitless. However, the reasons for opting out will be recorded on the court file, and a party/parties that have refused mediation may find themselves subject to an adverse costs order at the end of a trial if the trial judge feels that a settlement could have been achieved earlier on. Civil mediation advisor We are appointing, for a trial period, a civil mediation advisor at Manchester Combined Court Centre. The advisor will primarily be available to talk to parties attending case management conferences at court, but will also be available generally to the public. The advisor will not actually mediate cases but will discuss and inform parties about the benefits mediation may bring to their case, and then set up a mediation appointment with a local provider if they choose to try the process. Information leaflets We are testing the effectiveness of sending an information leaflet to parties involved in court proceedings. The leaflet provides information about mediation and how its use may benefit parties. It also provides a list of useful contacts if parties wish to find out more or arrange a mediation appointment. We are piloting the idea at 28 courts which will also help us establish the optimum time in the court process to send out the leaflet. |
2.68 The Legal Services Commission (see Chapter 6) is conducting pilots of the Family Advice and Information Service (further information can be found at www.legalservices.gov.uk). The service, which will build on existing best practice and existing services, will provide a range of co-ordinated services to those with family problems, including providing information, legal advice, and mediation. Services will be accessed through contracted suppliers and provided either directly or through links with other local services. An initial pilot phase to test the arrangements commenced in late April 2002 and the existing pilot areas were extended and new areas added from the end of April 2003.
2.69 Solicitors are paid under contract for conducting cases under the pilot and are also reimbursed for taking part in activity and returns required for the research evaluation. The Legal Services Commission have reported resistance from potential Family Advice and Information Service providers in some areas because of concerns regarding remuneration rates for publicly-funded work and the current level of bureaucracy in administration of this work.
2.70 The Family Advice and Information Service pilot will be looking to pilot further incentives for service providers by paying an enhanced rate to encourage and build settlement-led practice.
2.71 DCA is a mainstream public service delivery Department, and is committed to ensuring the services we provide meet the needs of the public that we serve. We have a target to increase year on year the level of satisfaction of users by taking speedy, high-quality decisions and reducing unnecessary delay and cost, and by ensuring outcomes are enforced effectively (PSA target 4). Performance against the target will be measured through four headline targets and fourteen supporting targets. The targets are described in more detail below.
2.72 Overall customer satisfaction with the courts, tribunals and other offices (measured through an independently conducted survey) is also increasing. In 2003/04 overall customer satisfaction was 84%. This met our SR2000 target of achieving a 5% increase on the 78% achieved in the last full survey (2001/02).
2.73 Analysis of the annual customer satisfaction surveys carried out in 2001/02 identified the key areas where customers were most dissatisfied with the service we were providing. The four PSA headline targets will measure our progress in these areas:
Protecting children, putting their interests first |
2.74 In response we have introduced specific measures to deliver year-on-year improvement in customer satisfaction in those areas and have produced and begun to implement a Customer Experience Improvement Plan. The first raft of activities under the plan include:
2.75 In 2003/04 we achieved significant improvement against three of four headline targets (see performance tables in Chapter 1). The performance data for headline target 3, where there has not been significant improvement, is not drawn from a robust sample size: only 344 of some 8,000 customers surveyed indicated they had made a complaint.
2.76 Our commitment to excellence in public service is reflected by our success in the Cabinet Office's Charter Mark scheme. 197 courts and other offices now hold the Charter Mark - more than any other public sector organisation. Our aim is that the majority of the 53 remaining courts that currently do not hold Charter Mark will apply when the scheme reopens in 2004.
2.77 DCA's supporting targets also measure the speed of resolution of complaints, from Court Service Headquarters down to local county court level. The latest performance data is set out in the performance tables in Chapter 1.
2.78 The civil courts make a significant contribution to the fight against anti-social behaviour, and to the strengthening of communities. In addition to the direct customer service targets, we are also focusing performance improvements in our civil courts on:
2.79 We also want to maintain and increase public confidence in the administration of civil law by making sure that judgments are properly enforced. We are determined to give customers the information and support they need in choosing appropriate enforcement methods and service providers. The better people understand the system and the more information to which they have access to inform their choice, the greater the likelihood of successful recovery for the creditor, and also the smaller the likelihood that the debtor will be subject to methods of recovery that are unduly harsh.
2.80 In the past year considerable progress has been made in the area of High Court enforcement. Provisions contained in the Courts Act 2003, which will be implemented as of April 2004, will enable us to bring forward reforms designed to encourage competition and consumer choice in this area. At the same time these reforms will maintain the existing high levels of competence and probity within High Court enforcement, and promote efficiency and best practice in matters such as consumer redress, diversity and employment practices.
2.81 The Sheriffs, who currently carry out enforcement of High Court writs, have continued to compile and produce performance statistics during 2003. Their results for 2003 showed a collection rate against all correctly due and enforceable warrants of 54 pence in the pound compared to 47 pence in the pound for the period July - December 2002.
2.82 The performance of county court bailiffs on warrant enforcement has continued to improve. Their results for 2003 showed a collection rate against all correctly due and enforceable warrants of 89 pence in the pound compared to 87 pence in the pound for the period July - December 2002.
2.83 Our White Paper Effective Enforcement (March 2003) put forward a package of legislative proposals to provide information for, and improvements to, court-based methods of enforcement. It also provides for a single regulatory regime, a single piece of enforcement agent legislation, and a single and simplified fee structure, for all civil warrant enforcement agents. This work has continued to be informed by the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Group on Enforcement Service Delivery, who published their 4th and final report in November 2003. The group has now been disbanded. However, DCA officials continue to liaise closely with their many valued stakeholders, both from other Government Departments and from outside bodies, in their continued efforts to prepare these proposals for legislation as and when Parliamentary time allows.
2.84 DCA seeks to continuously improve our civil justice practice and processes. Initiatives in 2004/05 will include:
2.85 DCA plays an important role in delivering the process for deciding asylum claims. We share a joint target with the Home Office to focus the asylum system on those genuinely fleeing persecution by taking speedy, high-quality decisions and reducing significantly unfounded asylum claims, including by:
2.86 The Immigration and Nationality Directorate in the Home Office (www.homeoffice.gov.uk) make an initial decision on the asylum application, the Immigration Appellate Authority will hear any tribunal appeal that is made on that decision and the Immigration and Nationality Directorate act on the outcome of that decision (either through removal or grant of leave to remain). The National Asylum Support Service provides financial support to the asylum seeker during this process, while the Legal Services Commission provides the funds for legal advice.
2.87 DCA has three levels of involvement:
2.88 The priority for DCA is to deliver a fast and effective process that provides good quality legal advice to those with a meritorious case. A high quality, timely legal service and appeals process reduce the time taken to reach a final decision therefore the dependency on National Asylum Support Service is reduced and savings made to the overall 'Single Asylum Fund'.
2.89 The overarching target is to ensure that 60% of new substantive asylum applications are decided (including final appeal) within six months (2003/04). Of cases arising in April to August 2003, 63% are being decided (including appeal) within six months.
2.90 This is underpinned by three supporting targets, DCA's component being, to ensure that 65% of appeals from receipt of appeal at Immigration Appellate Authority to adjudicator determination are completed in 12 weeks. As appeals move through the system we are able to monitor their individual performance achievements. Impressively for April to August 2003 appeals, Immigration Appellate Authority has achieved a performance level of 73%, 8% higher than target.
2.91 The recent success the Immigration and Nationality Directorate have had driving down asylum intake has allowed work to concentrate on clearing backlogs. More detailed statistics on the asylum system (eg intake and removal figures) can be located on the Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk.
2.92 We published a Consultation Paper on 5 June 2003: Public Consultation on Proposed Changes to Publicly Funded Immigration and Asylum Work (CP 07/03). We received 260 responses to the Consultation Paper. The House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee also inquired into our proposals and reported on 31 October 2003. Ongoing and planned initiatives to improve performance against target are:
Case study: the fast track model - delivering fair and rapid decision making The fast track pilot, which was based at Harmondsworth, was a joint initiative that delivered fast turnaround of asylum applications, appeals and improved removals. This was based on the potential of co-location or close proximity of detention to hearing centres. The fast turnaround of appeals also helped discourage future bogus applicants, while being beneficial to the genuine asylum seeker. The aim was to take cases through the decision process and any subsequent appeals that may be lodged within 28 days. The success of the fast track pilot in delivering fast turnaround of asylum applications, appeals and improved removals is put down to four factors:
Each part of the system contributed in the following way: Immigration and Nationality Directorate
Legal Services Commission
Immigration Appellate Authority
Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
|
2.93 In addition to these are some joint projects that include:
2.94 The target for 2004/05 will build on the achievements of 2003/04. Future targets will also take account of new proposals for the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.
2.95 Fast track is now an established part of the asylum process. The evaluation of this system has led to an increase in the number of applicants going through this process and there are plans for expansion in April 2004.
2.96 The Government has been determined to take action on asylum legal aid as a result of:
2.97 Asylum legal aid costs have risen from £81.3m in 2000/01 to £174.2m in 2002/03. There are a number of reasons for this increase, but it remains the case that the majority of claims for asylum are refused. Many of the planned initiatives outlined in the previous paragraphs will address the rise in legal aid costs.
2.98 The Legal Services Commission will also introduce a threshold for immigration non-asylum cases, which will be three hours. Once the thresholds are reached, suppliers will only be allowed to proceed under legal aid with prior authority from the Legal Services Commission. Extensions are only likely to be granted, on application to the Legal Services Commission, where the case satisfies the sufficient benefit and merits tests. A limited number of high standard firms may have devolved powers to self-grant to a higher figure.
2.99 In all but exceptional cases (unaccompanied minors; applicants going through fasttrack initial decision processes; those suffering from a recognised and verifiable mental incapacity which makes it impractical to undergo an interview without support) funding for attendance by a representative at the substantive asylum interview will not be authorised (subject to Parliamentary approval in spring 2004).
2.100 Before any preparatory work can be carried out under legal aid for an asylum appeal, the Legal Services Commission will need to be satisfied that the case merits being pursued. If the Commission is satisfied that the appeal case merits representation, it will set a financial threshold up to which firms will be able to work before they need to seek an extension. As now, applicants will be able to seek a review of refusal of funding for an appeal against rejection of their asylum claim, but any such review will be considered on the papers only. The Legal Services Commission will continue to let a small number of suppliers that have a good record of success on appeal cases to continue to make decisions about whether funding should be granted.
2.101 The changes will be introduced from March 2004; the new five-hour threshold will apply to all suppliers from 1 May 2004. The thresholds will apply to all work whether done on new or old cases started after introduction. Accreditation will become compulsory by April 2005. These revised proposals are estimated to save around £30m in 2004/05 against what we would be spending were we not to introduce prior authorisation. Taken together, these measures will bring asylum legal aid under effective control and cut out unnecessary expenditure. Costs will be limited, and targeted at the most deserving cases. Quality representation will be recognised and rewarded by the new accreditation scheme, and wasteful duplication of cases will be ended.