Law Society accuses MoJ of providing inaccurate data on court closures

The government's latest round of proposed court closures would adversely impact local communities, the justice system, and the legal profession, according to the Law Society.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is suggesting the closure of 91 courts and tribunals, which represents one fifth of the courts estate across England and Wales, as well as the integration or merge of 31 more.

The reduction in capacity amounts to 23 per cent of all magistrates' court rooms, 17 per cent of all county court rooms, 13 per cent of all tribunal rooms, and 4 per cent of all crown court rooms.

The plans represent the biggest round of closures since 2010, when the MoJ announced 142 were to be scrapped as part of its Courts and Estate Reform Programme.

In response to the MoJ's consultation, the Law Society requested copies of data and any analysis used to determine the list of courts set for mothballing. The ministry, however, declined to provide the information.

The Law Society is directly opposing 59 closures and has suggested alternative solutions for five others. It said it had not received significant concerns on the 27 remaining courts.

The president of the Law Society, Jonathan Smithers, observed: 'A majority of these proposed court closures will make it more difficult for a significant number people to get to court, and the closures will more adversely affect people living in rural areas, those with disabilities and lower income families.

'Combined with the further planned increases in court fees and reductions in eligibility for legal aid, many of the proposed closures will serve to deepen the inequalities in the justice system between those who can and cannot afford to pay.'

Smithers added: 'No matter who you are, no matter where you live, everyone in England and Wales must be able to access legal advice and the justice system.'

Time and expense

The government's plans rely on travel to court by car, but many court users will have to use public transport, which the Law Society assert is circuitous and more expensive.

A return journey from Aylesbury, for example, to the alternative court in Milton Keynes, costs £71.30, takes over 2.5 hours each way, and involves two changes.

Solicitors have argued that many of the travel times stated in the MoJ proposals are 'misleading' and do not take sufficient account of local geography or transport infrastructure, particularly in rural areas where services run infrequently and may not be direct.

The increased travel time would also have adverse economic and logistical impacts on the judiciary, jurors, HMCTS staff, and the prison and probation services.

Many of the courts earmarked for closure have higher than average volumes of work. Solicitors have advised there are already long waiting times, backlogs of work, and trials delayed or postponed as a result. It is unclear how alternative courts will handle the extra workload.

Part of the government's rationale for the closures is that better use of technology can improve the court service and reduce the need for in-person hearings.

The society, however, has claimed it would be better to modernise the courts with new technology before considering savings.

Legal aid

The Law Society also expressed anxiety that the closures would lead to solicitors being unable to meet the requirements of their legal aid contracts through no fault of their own. This could leave people who qualify for legal aid unable to access legal advice in some areas.

Legal aid solicitors bid for contracts based on the geography of the existing courts, and some fear they will be financially unable to fulfil their contract if courts close in their region. In such cases, some solicitors said they would have to withdraw their tenders.

A lack of transparency and reported errors in the MoJ's impact assessment was also a cause of concern.

Neither the consultation paper nor the impact assessment set out the criteria used to identify the courts recommended for closure or consolidation. The algorithm used to calculate travel times is no longer available to the public, having been taken offline in 2014.

In addition, solicitors pointed out a worrying number of factual errors in the MoJ's consultation document, including miscalculations on current usage and over-estimations of capacity of alternative courts.

'They have worked out the usage figures based on four court rooms when there are only three. The fourth court is little more than a cupboard and is not secure,' said one solicitor concerned about the closure of Burton Magistrates' Court.

In other cases the MoJ was said to have included inaccurate information about court facilities, for instance claiming a court proposed for closure did not have technology when said technology had already been installed.

Finally, the Law Society states that the option of re-allocating work from busy courts to those currently under-used does not appear to have been considered.

Transferring cases from courts with backlogs and long waiting times to those with spare capacity would represent an efficient use of the court estate.

John van der Luit-Drummond is deputy editor for Solicitors Journal
john.vanderluit@solicitorsjournal.co.uk | @JvdLD