‘19th century’ crown courts letting down victims of crime

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/oct/31/archaic-cours-blighting-delivery-of-justice

Version 0 of 1.

The crown courts of England and Wales are chaotic, archaic and often leave victims and witnesses feeling marginalised, according to an alliance of justice experts.

A report, Structured Mayhem, to be published on Wednesday by the Criminal Justice Alliance (CJA), a body that represents more than 90 justice organisations, is based on two years’ worth of research and suggests that parts of the courts system are stuck in the 19th century. It warns that the proceedings and language employed in the courts are “elaborate, ritualised and – in many respects – archaic”, and attacks the wigs and gowns worn by barristers and judges for creating a sense of “otherworldliness” that is generally confusing to those outside the legal profession.

The CJA report found victims and witnesses risked bumping into defendants in or around court and paints a picture of a system intent on creating an atmosphere of drama to sustain its authority, leaving many participants who come into contact with it angry and upset.

It states: “While hearings, and particularly trials, are elaborate and formal, they are also often chaotic. Bringing a large cast of characters together over the requisite period of time – along with necessary documentation and evidence in the form of video or audio recordings and physical artefacts – is a challenging task that can, and often does, go wrong. The consequent delays, adjournments and scheduling problems often cause frustration, anxiety and inconvenience to victims, witnesses and defendants.”

The average time it takes from the moment someone is charged with an offence to the conclusion of a crown court trial has risen from 304 to 360 days in the last 18 months. The report notes that in some cases this length of time can be up to two years.

“Justice delayed, too often without explanation and amid huge confusion, can be every bit as bad as justice denied for victims and witnesses,” said Ben Summerskill, the CJA’s director.

Almost 100,000 defendants were tried in the 76 crown courts in England and Wales last year, but only half of the scheduled trials went ahead as planned. To counter the resulting confusion, the CJA report suggests a special officer should be appointed to the court administrative office to monitor delays and communicate them to court users. Employers should also be able to ask how long their employees will be missing from work if they are acting as witnesses, while police and crime commissioners are made responsible for monitoring the implementation of guidelines.

A Crown Prosecution Service survey has found that half of all victims and more than a third of witnesses feel unsupported when giving evidence. “Frequently our courts system still appears to operate with all the efficiency of the late 19th century in the first half of the 21st,” Summerskill said. “This creates huge human distress and frustration. In recent years much progress has been made in the better treatment of victims, often made to feel incidental to a trial, but too often their feelings remain overlooked.”

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has introduced measures to overhaul the courts system, such as the introduction of a witness service office. But, despite these initiatives, the report said that “it became evident from our own interviews with victims and witnesses that many continue to feel marginalised throughout the court process”.

Judges and prosecutors should do more to counter this, the CJA suggests, by explaining in detail how an outcome has been reached to users of the courts.

A spokesman for the MoJ said it would consider the report’s findings. “The people who are let down most badly by our justice system are those who must take part in it through no fault or desire of their own: victims and witnesses of crime and children who have been neglected,” the spokesman said.

“That is why we urgently need to reform our criminal courts by making sure prosecutions are brought more efficiently, unnecessary procedures are stripped out, information is exchanged by email or conference call rather than in a series of hearings and evidence is served in a timely and effective way.”