Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, Westminster, London
Speech by Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I am delighted to be here.
I am invited to very many conferences. Mostly I say no. Not to this one.
First, because it is the inaugural national conference. But secondly, and more importantly, it is for a group of people on who reform in the criminal justice system will, in the months and years to come, increasingly depend.
I want in a moment to say something about the criminal justice system.
But before I do so, could I say a little about your role.
An accurate, if somewhat dry, description of your job is: You prepare the cases for court. You provide legal advice to the magistrates and sometimes to district judges in court. You record the result, and draw up the order. You are responsible for education and training.
In my experience the reality is that whilst the magistrates decide the factual issues and the sentences, in court, they look to you to keep the whole process going, and to deal with points which arise, whether they be legal points, or, more commonly, difficult inter-personal points.
What do you do when the defence lawyer is repeatedly detained in another court? How do you deal with the representative who doesn't appear to have a clue? What do you do with the lawyer who repeatedly burst into tears if the bench ask him questions?
All situations about which I have been told when visiting magistrates' courts.
When you are in court the successful navigation of the court through that session's list does depend on you.
You have to be a cross between the Lord Chief Justice, Jonathan Ross, and Bruce Forsyth on Strictly Come Dancing. The Lord Chief Justice for the law, Jonathan Ross in asking questions to determine where the case, the defendant or the file have got to, and Bruce Forsyth to keep the case going right up until the verdict has been reached, and the sentence passed.
True you don't conduct a post sentence interview with the convicted defendants, but in every other respect you perform all of Bruce Forsyth's roles.
And you have to perform these three roles with no one noticing you are there, and without being paid £8m for the privilege of doing so.
It is a demanding job. And it is one of huge influence. The magistrates or the district judge make the substantive decisions, but, particularly with magistrates, you provide them with the continuity, the confidence and the standards within which they make their decisions.
You do a fantastic job. Everywhere I go when I visit magistrates' courts in England and Wales you are invariably complimented. Those who have been there when I visit courts will have heard it yourself, so you know it is true.
It is also the case that the last twelve months have been, for you, exceedingly difficult. The creation of Her Majesty's Court Service, the financial pressures, and the increasing demands have meant the landscape has not been easy.
So for doing so well in difficult circumstances, thank you. And for staying, thank you, because I know the competition can, sometimes, offer better rates. And for keeping up quality, thank you. The system depends on that quality continuing.
I could not ask for higher standards than those which the legal advisers deliver.
Before turning to the criminal justice system, I should say in choosing this as my theme for to-day I would not want anybody to think I am not acutely aware of the challenges facing the magistrates' courts in family justice. We are keen to see more family cases dealt with in the magistrates' courts. On another occasion I will set out my views on that important area.
95% of criminal cases are dealt with in the magistrates' court. They are the court with which the largest number of people, who come across the criminal justice system, have dealings. Confidence in the system depends in very large measure on the extent to which the public have confidence in the magistrates' court. High profile cases, and high profile sentencing controversies in particular have an effect on confidence. But research regularly reveals that the two factors which most determine the public's view of the criminal justice system in a particular geographical area are the experience of those who have come across it, and the views of those who work in it.
In many places where I visit people do not have confidence in the court system. They judge its success by the levels of crime which they experience in their own neighbourhood. The poorer the neighbourhood the more they will experience crime. They will often know who the regular offenders are and that they have been to court many times. We cannot determine the outcomes of individual court cases by the wishes of the community, but we need to have a justice system in which the public have confidence.
Two things will achieve that.
First the system visibly working in a way which the public can see is fair and effective.
And second, the system connecting to the communities it serves.
The first point depends on cases coming on within a reasonable time, and the courts having the ability to ensure that defence and prosecution perform to a reasonable standard.
Much has been done, much of it by legal advisers, but we need to do more.
The charging changes in the Crown Prosecution Service are designed to improve the quality of the charge laid, and to improve joint working between the Crown Prosecution Service, and the police. Although the changes have led to delays in some places, overall the quality of preparation and charging is going up.
The creation of HMCS has improved our ability to assign cases more efficiently between courts. Whilst the creation of HMCS has brought particular difficulties in some magistrates' courts, overall the response has been positive. Little of what we are seeking to do could have been attempted without HMCS.
The transfer of the role of head of the judiciary from the Lord Chancellor to the Lord Chief Justice has meant there has been a much greater involvement of the crown court judges, and the senior judiciary in making the administration of courts better.
The Carter legal aid changes, and the introduction of the means test, whilst vigorously opposed in many places, will ensure first that the defence team has the most powerful motive to deal with the case as quickly as possible, and second to ensure precious resources which have hitherto been spent on those who should in all conscience finance their own defence will now be available for those who genuinely cannot afford to fund their defence.
So there is reform to make the system better for the public occurring in almost every part of the system.
The creation of the National Criminal Justice Board, and the Local Criminal Justice Boards, has sought to ensure that the various agencies work better together, and have a mutually shared strategy for addressing criminal justice issues in the parts of the country they serve. These steps to ensure better cross-agency working are very important.
It is important these steps address the issue at every level within the various organisations. In too many places I am told at chief officer level that the relations have never been better, and then when I attend court it is obvious that relations between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police are not as rosy as I have been told. Success on the cross-agency agenda depends critically on it working at working level.
We in the courts have a pivotal role in that process of reform. It is very obvious to anyone with experience of the courts that the judges or the magistrates cannot make cases come on quickly, or properly prepared - they cannot do anything if the witness has not been told of the date for trial, they cannot find the file if it has been lost. However they do play a critical role in determining what are the standards to which the prosecution and the defence must work. And in enforcing those standards.
With a very few exceptions, the two sides in a criminal case prepare their cases in a short period of time before the trial or the hearing. In some cases the preparation does not begin until the day of the hearing. The trigger for starting the preparation is the imminence of the hearing. The constraints on preparation for the Crown Prosecution Service and the defence are the other cases the agencies or the lawyers have to do.
They will simply react to the pressure put upon them by the system.
The one place which has a wider responsibility is the courts.
In the courts we have a choice. We can say that the timeliness of cases is, in the last resort, the responsibility of the parties. If they are not ready then, short of dismissing the case there is not much we can do about it.
Or we can recognise that we are the only part of the criminal justice system who gets a chance to see the picture overall, and the only part that has a clear responsibility to drive cases forward. And that we are responsible for ensuring that cases come on as quickly as reasonably possible.
I have no doubt we must adopt the latter course. Because no one else can or will. And because it is a role the judges and the magistrates are willing to take on.
What does this mean in practice? It means that in a particular court success or failure should be judged in part by the extent to which cases are coming on, and being dealt with within the time which is regarded as reasonable for that court. Just as in Crown Courts there is a resident judge responsible for seeing that the overall performance of the courts is up to standard, so there needs to be a group of people with responsibility for seeing that their particular magistrates' court is meeting its targets for the timeliness of cases and the quality of preparation.
That group needs to comprise the chair of the bench, the District Judge or one of the District Judge's if there is more than one, a representative of the legal advisers, and the court manager. That group has to have the responsibility for seeing the court overall is performing well.
The courts role, as it does at the moment, is to apply case management techniques to ensure that cases do come on in a reasonable time. For some cases this will be the next day if is a simple guilty plea. Where there is to be a trial then it will normally be in not more than six weeks.
Where there are blockages because the police or the Crown Prosecution Service say this cannot be done then we have an obligation to work with those agencies to try to overcome the difficulties.
This approach - simple clear standards, known to all, and applied by all - is at the heart of CJSSS - “Criminal Justice, Simple Speedy Summary”, which we set out in our paper in the summer, which we have implemented in four pilots in England and Wales and which we will roll out to the rest of the country in the next year.
These reforms have the full support of the Crown Prosecution Service, the senior judiciary, and the police. Also the defence lawyers. Invariably where they have been engaged they have been constructive and supportive. For them there is a real incentive in making the process as efficient as possible.
The precise form the pilot has taken in each place has varied. But all at their heart have agreed processes with the Crown Prosecution Service and the police, and the defence lawyers for identifying the cases which can be dealt with quickly, and clear steps to be taken in those cases which go to trial which ensure those cases come on in a timely fashion.
In all of these pilot areas, the legal advisers have played a critical part. Find them and talk to them to-day. These pilots are young. But they are producing impressive results. Overall, there has been a 78% reduction in adjournments at the first hearing. There has been a 30% increase in guilty pleas at the first hearing. 60% of guilty pleas are now entered at the first hearing and dealt with on that day.
In the Coventry Magistrates where the legal advisers are taking an increasing role in the process, 80% of those cases where there is a trial come on within six weeks. Two other courts - Thames magistrates and Camberwell green are not far behind.
And the legal advisers are willing to ensure by reading the papers in advance that time is not wasted. In Coventry a legal adviser noted that a section 5 Public Order Act charge had allegedly been committed by the defendant in his own home. As was obvious to the legal adviser, it is not possible to commit a public order offence in the privacy of your home. He contacted the Crown Prosecution Service and the charge was dropped.
CJSSS is not an initiative on a particular point. It is about improving the way we do the mainstream work. When it rolls out, it success will depend to a considerable extent on your willingness to work in new ways, to set and enforce reasonable standards, to co-operate actively with the other agencies. If you do that then it will work. And we will make a big breakthrough in the way the courts operate.
I said there were two things. The first was the courts acting in a fair and effective way. The second was the courts being connected to their communities.
On connection, we need to address the sense that communities have in many places that the courts do not understand the problems which the community face. I can assure you it is a real problem. And it is one which corrodes the standing in which the justice system is held.
More often than not it relates to the response of the court to what would be regarded as low-level crimes. And the response of the court to the persistent offender, who commits large numbers of offences, often when quite young, sometimes whilst remanded on bail for other offences, again very often involving low-level offences.
And it is important to recognise the issue is more than perception. Courts and the methods they use to deal with cases should contribute to solving the problems which communities face. And of course in the case of the dangerous or very serious offender, they very often do.
But in the problems communities face there are too many places where the courts are not perceived to be a contributor to solving those problems.
Often these problems are very local; a particular park, or shopping parade or estate, that has an enormously corrosive affect on communities. Often they are repetitive; local residents often see the same behaviour going apparently unhindered and unpunished, day after day.
Community courts may be in new places. But they are magistrates' courts operating in a new way.
Community courts, this approach to community justice, was pioneered in the USA. Many of us trod the road to New York: to Redhook, to the Midtown court in Manhattan. We've seen how they work. We've seen their impact.
We've seen an area like Times Square in New York be transformed - not just by the Midtown court, but with the Midtown court at the heart of the transformation - from a centre of drugs, prostitution, street crime and violence, Times Square is now an area which is safe, which is widely-used and which is attractive.
A decade or so ago, what was for sale in Times Square was drugs and sex. Now it's where Disney has its flagship New York store.
When we set up the Community Justice Centre in North Liverpool, it was a clear attempt to emulate that success. To see if the Manhattan model could become the Merseyside model.
For my part, I've seen that it does, and I know it does. I know that through tireless work, David Fletcher, the judge there, has become the visible face of justice in north Liverpool.
He has become part of the community he serves, and has done so much to improve it. He has become, as I heard from residents in the community, 'Our Judge'.
He's achieved that through connection, and by inspiring confidence. Achieved because he and the numerous Magistrates and legal advisers, have made themselves accessible. Through regular 'meet the judge' meetings. Through community surgeries and community events. Through steps like giving people in the community the home phone numbers of court staff, so that they can go to them with the problems the courts are there to help resolve.
We then extended the Merseyside model, applying it in a different way, but with just as significant and signal results, down the road in Manchester. The community justice initiative at Salford Magistrates Court depends on the magistrates. Like north Liverpool, it has shown clearly the benefits of genuine engagement with the community. Real, tangible, practical benefits. Benefits which have made the lives of people living in that community so much better. And benefits for the staff, including legal advisers, who feel involved.
We know now that community justice works. Take a couple of specific examples. One particular street in north Liverpool, in the very heart of the local community, had become notorious for kerb crawling.
The residents were fed up with this and brought the problem to the attention of 'their judge', Judge David Fletcher. David judged that the solution was not just a fine. Fines would not stop the kerb crawling. The problem would either stay where it was, or move to another area.
So instead of fining defendants when they were brought before him, he banned them from driving. Responsive, quick, effective. An innovative and successful solution that ensured justice was delivered to the community.
It may be you're already doing the same thing in your courts. But in Liverpool because of the connection, and because the court's approach changed the community have seen their concerns listened to, and the problems addressed.
Or another example, again from Liverpool. Residents had asked that something be done about their local canal. It was in a real mess and had been made dangerous through vandalism and dumping of rubbish. People were unable to enjoy what had once been a popular community area. Young offenders were punished not by fines or custodial sentences, but by being ordered to clean up the canal. To give the canal back to the community.
Examples, both of these and many others, in Liverpool and in Salford, of the community making its voice heard. And of the court showing the community that it was listening. That it was acting. And that it was making the difference the community wanted to see.
We have learned that it is the connection with the community which works.
Liverpool and Salford are showing that community justice works. And how it works.
So we want now to extend it. To move the successful operation of Liverpool and Salford out across the country.
I announced a week ago that we are extending the community justice concept and the community justice practice to 10 new areas.
Each of these community justice projects are at different stages. Some are more advanced than others. The model of one will not necessarily be applied in exactly the same way in another, just as Salford operates differently to Liverpool.
But they all have teams committed to making that connection. Within the next two years I would like to see the concept applied in every part of England and Wales.
We, in the centre, have a role in identifying ideas which work. But sustainable improvements will never come from initiatives from the centre.
CJSSS and community courts are not centre driven initiatives. They are simple, and come from identifying what goes with the existing grain. And they go right to what a successful court system should always be doing - serving its community, and keeping it simple and accessible.
I have over the last few months had a series of meetings with court staff and judges and magistrates. This is one of them. They have a number of simple messages - give us a few simple mainstream targets to meet, and we will deliver. And they say they can break through the chronic problems of the criminal justice system. I think they are right.
You, the legal advisers, are a vital part of making that breakthrough.
Together we can breakthrough for the people we serve - the public who depend on the criminal justice system
Thank you.