Report reveals "dissatisfaction and disquiet" with Public Law Outline

A report for the Ministry of Justice found 'dissatisfaction and disquiet' with the operation of the Public Law Outline (PLO) together with 'serious concerns' relating to the welfare of children at the pre-action stage.

The PLO, introduced in April 2008, aims to reduce delays in Children Act cases and make better use of court time.

However a report for the MoJ by the National Centre of Social Research and Oxford University uncovered a worrying picture of poor compliance and delays.

The researchers found that the 'frontloading' of work under the PLO led to delays in cases coming to court.

'In particular, this study noted serious concerns raised by respondents regarding the welfare, voice and human rights of the child during the pre-proceedings stage. A critical review of this process should include a re-appraisal of the question of independent welfare and legal representation of children at the point at which the letter before proceedings is issued.'

The researchers found that there was lack of input from guardians at first appointments, poor understanding and completion of the 'timetable for the child' and little evidence that the timetable took precedence in the court process.

They also found the way the PLO was applied by lawyers, judges and magistrates varied.

'Some were inflexible in its application to the possible detriment to the case,' the researchers said. 'Like any tool, the PLO's efficacy is entirely dependent on the skill with which it is used.

'Skilful application includes understanding when the needs of the case require departure from the PLO timetable. Less skilful application would appear to lie in inflexible adherence to the timetable.'

Poor local authority compliance in some areas was identified as one of the main difficulties and a key cause of delay to proceedings.

In two of three areas looked at by the report lack of guardians caused concern in the initial stages.

The researchers called for a 'critical review' of the PLO regarding parents' capacity to access specialist child care lawyers and the capacity of the PLO to prevent cases coming to court.

Lack of notice prior to implementation of the PLO in 2008, 'unwieldy' paperwork, variability across courts which went 'beyond flexibility for the needs of the case' and lack of judicial continuity were all seen as important obstacles to implementation.

Katherine Gieve, chair of Resolution's children committee, said that before the PLO was introduced there were very few cases which were brought which should not have been.

In a similar way she said the suggestion that there were too many unnecessary hearings was probably wrong.

'Generally it has not made a lot of difference,' she said. 'Local authorities are extremely uneven in their resources and approach. Some are under enormous pressure and don't have well-qualified social workers, while others do.'

She said the lack of guardians meant that she had been acting in a case for three months without one.