Those who work in the courts air their views, providing concrete evidence of the problems
Even before the extra burdens that resulted from the Jackson reforms, the courts in England and Wales have been struggling to provide an acceptable, let alone efficient, service. Of course, this does not only affect those who work with the courts; clients suffer delays and higher costs as a result of the increased work often required to address administrative errors made by the courts. More than one lawyer reading this article will have found themselves with a 15-minute hearing slot after requesting an hour, or providing copy papers after the court has lost its file.
Following last month’s publication of a report into the findings of the Judicial Attitude Survey 2014, there is now concrete evidence of the problems being experienced by those working within the courts. The survey was conducted by the Judicial Institute of University College London and it is the first covering all serving salaried judges in the United Kingdom’s courts and non-devolved tribunals. Its findings regarding judges in the courts of England and Wales and in the UK non-devolved tribunals should be of serious concern to anyone interested in access to justice – particularly in view of the 89% response rate to the survey.
All change?
A striking 73% of the judges in the courts of England and Wales and UK non-devolved tribunals believe that too much change has been imposed on the judiciary in recent years. While most judges (70%) accept some change is needed in the judiciary, 57% of those in the courts feel the amount of change in recent years has brought judges to breaking point (with a further 23% describing themselves as “unsure” on this issue).
There also seem to be concerns about the drivers behind these changes, with almost all judges (91%) seeing government policy initiatives as driving change in the judiciary, 59% blaming public misunderstanding and 57% allocating some responsibility to the media. Almost none of the judges said that they feel valued by the government (2%) or the media (4%).
Unfortunately, the report does not contain any of the detailed comments provided by the judges, which might explain more about the specific changes causing concern. As a result, we cannot know the extent to which the judiciary’s responses reflect the extra work resulting from the Jackson reforms to the Civil Procedure Rules. However, it may be telling that 46% of the court judges felt that their case workload over the previous 12 months had been too high.
Mind the gap – in funding
In addition, there have inevitably been changes for the judges as a result of the funding constraints under which our courts now operate. Almost all of the courts’ judiciary (91%) feel that their working conditions have deteriorated since five years ago, with more than half (54%) saying that conditions are now significantly worse. On the matter of court administration, where my colleagues and I tend to experience the most frustration in dealing with the courts, almost two-thirds of the judges (65%) described court staff morale as “poor”. Administrative support was labelled as “poor” by 40% and “adequate” by 37%. Little wonder then that 92% of the judges identified the reduction in support staff as one of the key future challenges for the judiciary.
In terms of the wider support given to the judiciary, none of the six resource areas covered by the survey were rated as “good” or “excellent” by a majority of judges, with 50% grading the standard of IT equipment in the courts as “poor”. This certainly reflects my own experience; I remember one occasion in the High Court (in a supposedly “cutting edge” courtroom in the Rolls Building) when an exercise to enable documents to be viewed electronically led to me having to provide the screens and the cables.
Unfortunately, there appears to be little hope for improvement. Even the estimated additional income of £120m per annum anticipated for the courts from the recent significant increases in court fees (EG, 28 February, p106) is unlikely to assist; the recent government response to the consultation on reforming court fees emphasised its intention to continue achieving costs efficiencies within the courts.
No light at the end of the tunnel?
These challenges faced by our courts are somewhat surprising given that the government has outlined action plans during recent years to promote the UK internationally as a “centre of excellence” for dispute resolution. According to the Ministry of Justice’s most recent statistics, these plans may well be taking effect as the decrease in claims between 2006 and 2012 (from 2.1m to a 1.4m low) appears to be reversing: 1.2m claims were issued in the civil (non-family) courts within the first three quarters of 2014.
Nonetheless, it is hard to believe that this growth in court proceedings will continue in view of the increased pressures on our already stretched courts which will inevitably result. Surely, litigants who experience the frustrations of dealing with our courts – and suffer the increased costs of doing so – will often be sensibly advised to opt instead for arbitration, mediation or another form of alternative dispute resolution. However, the ability to access these options almost leaves to one side the importance of the right for parties to have access to justice. While it has been acknowledged that “a key aspect of ensuring that access to justice is protected is to ensure that the courts are properly funded”, there appears to be little appetite within government – or any opposition party – to provide real support for achieving this objective.
Emma Humphreys is a property litigation partner at Charles Russell Speechlys LLP
