Lawyers question need for weekend courts

The Law Society and the Bar Council have questioned the need for magistrates’ courts to sit on Saturdays and Sundays, as outlined in the government’s white paper on reforming criminal justice.

The plans set out in ‘Swift and Sure Justice’, and launched by minister for police and criminal justice minister Nick Herbert on Friday, would see single magistrates ruling on “uncontested, low level cases”.

There would be a cash threshold for magistrates wanting to send theft and handling stolen goods cases to the Crown Court, though defendants would keep their right to elect for trial by jury.

Herbert said in his foreword to the white paper that “justice delayed was justice denied” and the Magna Carta had stated that: “To no-one will we refuse or delay right or justice”.

He said swift justice “happened in response to last summer’s disorder”, when “offenders were brought to justice within days, sometimes even hours”.

Herbert said the white paper set out a “very clear ambition and plan to normalise much of this response so that justice is routinely swift and sure”.

Max Hill QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said the organisation was

“particularly concerned about the increased presumption that cases will be run in the magistrates’ courts based purely on the financial value of the case.”

He went on: “This is a blunt instrument which may not properly reflect the severity of the offence, and demonstrates the government’s commitment to cheap justice.

“Late and weekend court sittings enabled the criminal justice system to manage its vastly increased workload following the summer riots, but longer hours are not the answer to inefficiency. They place a strain on the courts and on court workers, and may lead to delays and poor outcomes.”

Richard Atkinson, chairman of the Law Society’s criminal law committee, questioned the need for weekend courts at a time when the number of cases was declining and said the plan would cause problems for prisons.

“There will be significant costs at a time the government says there is no more money, including for defence practitioners who are mostly small businesses and do not have the same flexibility as large employers, such as the CPS and the Court Service.

“The fact that there has been no adequate consultation and discussion with defence practitioners about the proposals suggests that, yet again, government is ignoring the only people in the system who see cases through from start to finish.

“We are keen to discuss these with government, but it is mistaken if it believes that these changes can be achieved in a way which is cost-neutral and it is disappointing that it has not taken the opportunity to look at other improvements which are likely to have a much greater effect on efficiency than a headline-grabbing initiative on court sittings.”

The white paper promised an extension of “police-led prosecutions”. MoJ officials said the home secretary had recently announced that, in addition to existing police powers to prosecute low-level traffic offences, they would be able to prosecute them when there was no plea or the defendant failed to appear, avoiding unnecessary adjournments and the need to involve the CPS.

“We will also extend this simpler, police-led, approach to a wider range of low-level offences,” officials said.

However, the white paper was more cautious about the use of out-of-court sanctions.

“The unprecedented rise in the use of out-of-court sanctions (for example, cautions and penalty notices for disorder) has raised concerns about whether they have been used appropriately.

“We are therefore developing the Justice Test which will provide a helpful tool to help professionals exercise their discretion in a fair and consistent way.”