It is always a great pleasure to judge and present the Times Law Awards. The consistently high standard of the essays every year gives me great hope for the future quality of our legal professions and, ultimately, our judiciary.
I know that optimism is shared by my fellow Judges, to whom I pay tribute: Robert Thompson, who is overseas in Japan tonight, the new editor of the Times; Lord Saville, Lord Grabiner and Ian Grainger. These are Robert's first awards as editor and, in wishing him a successful editorship, let me also congratulate his predecessor, Peter Stothard, on his well deserved recent Knighthood.
One Essex Court Chambers and Times Newspapers are also to be congratulated for their continued sponsorship of the Awards - now in their 15th year. This year's title: "Victims or Defendants: can there be Justice for All?" once again goes to the very heart of current legal debate. It is, of course, a question on the Government's proposals for reform of the Criminal Justice System. These were set out in the White Paper, "Justice for All", last summer. Many of them are now before Parliament in the Criminal Justice Bill and the Courts Bill.
Now when reading the essays, I did not agree by any means with many of the arguments put forward. But let me say how very impressed I was by the force and skill with which they were presented. The essays demonstrated a consistent scepticism towards the Government's proposals, and an adeptness for keen critical analysis that will serve the authors well in their future careers. Of course we judged them on their quality as essays and not on whether we agreed with them.
In one entry, for example, we were asked to consider whether an increase in victims' rights necessitated a corresponding decrease in the rights of defendants. Another criticised the critics, asking whether they would be willing to put their lives on hold for ten months to serve on the jury in a fraud trial. Several writers emphasised that an improved detection rate would be a stronger deterrent against crime than a higher conviction rate. And one considered whether the proposals implied a shift in values, so that convictions were valued more than the liberty of the innocent. Similarly, we were reminded that the innocent who are convicted are, themselves, victims of the Criminal Justice System. It was also argued that addressing the causes of crime, through its focus on rehabilitation of offenders, was the White Paper's real achievement. And a case was made for restorative justice, as an alternative means of placing victims at the heart of the Criminal Justice System.
One comment that struck a particular chord with me was "an effective court system should act as a deterrent in its own right". I agree. A more effective criminal court system requires the police, prosecution, judiciary, court staff and defence lawyers to work more effectively together, to improve the way we manage criminal cases. That is one of the central aims of the Case Preparation Project, led by my Department, which will give crucial support to the legislative reforms currently before Parliament.
63,000 trial hearings a year do not go ahead on time. The cause is very often ineffective preparation, for example the parties having failed to agree which issues are in dispute, or one side simply not being ready. The results are that:
These "ineffective hearings" and the associated delay mean that witnesses lose commitment, victims become demoralised, and there is greater opportunity for witness intimidation. As a result, the chances of convicting the guilty are reduced, public confidence is undermined, and there is a cost of £80 million a year to the public purse. Delay, as Lord Denning famously said, turns justice sour.
The Case Preparation Project will draw together the various agencies, departments and individuals involved in the trial process. It will ensure they co-operate effectively, whilst also ensuring that the constitutional imperatives of judicial independence and separation of police and prosecution, are maintained. The Project will introduce widespread reforms, covering the entire process from the moment a suspect is charged, to the point of disposal by the Court:
It will clarify roles, responsibilities and performance expectations so that the police, prosecution, Court, Judges, Magistrates, defence lawyers and other services are all absolutely clear what must be done, and by when, to prepare a case for trial.
It will introduce a new case progression obligation, under which named individuals in every agency will be personally responsible for managing every case. The Case Progression Officer will be required to inform the Court of progress, warn the Court of impending delay, and request more time promptly where necessary. Turning up at Court to report that work has not been done will no longer be good enough; and it will no longer be possible to claim that delay is "no-one's fault".
The Case Preparation Project will also introduce, to criminal proceedings, the fundamental concept of "Judge as Manager", which is already firmly established in civil proceedings. This involves a culture change and, in particular, the introduction of robust, hands-on, judicial case management. In practice this will mean that:
every case is "owned" by a Judge from its first arrival in Court until it is ready for trial;
the Judge will set clear timetables and directions to ensure all parties prepare effectively for trial, and will actively monitor whether they are doing so; and
the judge will impose sanctions where responsibilities are not fulfilled, for example only authorising payments of lawyers' fees where preparation has been sufficient.
I intend shortly to announce a detailed package of proposals, which we will pilot in six areas of the country this spring and summer. And in keeping with the joined up nature of these reforms, the pilots will be evaluated with input from all those involved in the trial process: the CPS, Police, defence lawyers, the Crown Court and the Magistrates' Courts, youth offending teams, the Bar, Law Society, and the probation, prison and prison escort services.
But now, in the best interests of reducing delay in these proceedings, let me announce the winners of the 2003 Times Law Awards. First, the Runners Up. They are Aidan Wilcox, Caroline Moore and Kasia Walawska. And the winners: third prize goes to Andrew Lang; second prize to Alexander Mills; and first prize to Adam Sher. Many congratulations to you all.