The Backlog bites at the margins

All the evidence drawn on for this article was submitted in December 2023 and January 2024.? It relates to historic periods sometimes up to 2 years before that evidence was sent to the Committee. Bear in mind that some of the issues to which I draw attention may (and I hope) have been put right by the time of this post some 4 months later.? Obviously, my summaries are no substitute for reading the evidence in full.

The Law Society ’s evidence (LSEW, Committee reference WC0028)

Makes clear the condition of the Court Estate is woeful with reference to “…an air conditioning unit falling on the head of one practitioner, leaking roofs, exposed wiring, a lack of heating or air conditioning, leaking toilets and chairs held together by gaffer tape.”

There is a call for more money to improve the poor condition of many Court buildings but Justice is not a protected Department and the only money that will be forthcoming is for Prisons and Crime, whatever stripe of Government we get at the next GE.? Having said that … Antonia Romeo ’s team at Justice recently worked a miracle in securing funding for early advice in the name of Improving Public Productivity.? I still believe it is right that public services should funded by public funds, but we need to temper principled protest with pragmatic panacea.

The problem of Courts built using Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC) is mentioned and explains: “…RAAC has been found in at least 8 courts, with a number forced to close. Blackpool County Court and Doncaster Justice Centre North are two of the County Courts that have been forced to close.”

These issues are all dire.? But the worst issue, in my view, is our Courts’ treatment of the disabled.? As the LSEW say in their evidence:

“The state of the courts poses a particular challenge to disabled users. The Law Society … found that disabled users of the courts are less likely to feel physically secure or safe from harm while attending court. [The disabled] were more likely to feel that the courts’ physical buildings were not fit for purpose. …Respondents to our survey highlighted examples including poor lighting making it difficult to see, hearing loops not working, lifts not working or court buildings themselves not being accessible for disabled court users.”

Although the LSEW say “…it is unclear whether HMCTS will be given additional resources to carry out remedial works, or whether funding will need to be taken from the existing maintenance budget...” in fact emergency funding was provided to HMCTS in the financial period 2020-21 when some ￡142m was allocated for court sustainability and Estates.? How has that been spent? Not on the lifts at Birkenhead County Court or other courts mentioned in the evidence.

The plight of disabled users is highlighted by several respondents to the Inquiry: Personal Injury Bar Association, CFG Law, DWF (Legal Operations) and Hyde Housing Ltd .? All are worth reading, I choose to quote this passage from CFG Law’s submission (WCC0037):

“The creaking courts estate is also out-dated and poses severe accessibility issues for many court users with disabilities who, in some instance, are unable to access the court building at all. Perfect evidence of this relates to a client of ours and her solicitor, Jonathan Fogerty of CFG. Both are wheelchair users who were attending an inquest at Wakefield Coroner’s Court. The day before they were due to attend the venue was switched to a larger court in the same building, which was not accessible as it was on the first floor. Our client was given the invidious choice of postponing the inquest, with the inevitable emotional distress that caused, or being unable to attend. The inquest was postponed and had to be held at another venue in Wakefield several weeks later. Quite apart from the distress this caused our client, who was attending her husband’s inquest after he was killed in an incident in which she had sustained life-changing injuries, it is simply unacceptable that courts remain inaccessible to wheelchair users and other people with disabilities. As of [the time of] writing [December 2023], we have no indication that the situation at Wakefield Coroners Court has been rectified and we know anecdotally of other court buildings where accessibility remains an issue.”

I make no apology for the lengthy quotation.?

A building in this condition is atrocious and very likely in breach of the duties imposed on the MoJ by s.20 of the Equality Act, 2010 to make adjustments to buildings to accommodate the needs of the disabled.? A lift installed but which does not work cannot be an adjustment that meets the requirements of the 2010 Act.

Anexo Group Plc (submission WCC0050) are: Direct Accident Management Services, IGCA 2013, Professional and Legal Services Limited, Edge Vehicle Rentals Limited and Bond Turner Limited.? Anexo’s response is based on data from our experience of 60 Courts in the period September 2021 to October 2023.

From the extensive data that that group of companies provides is produced an analysis that lays bare the sources of the Backlog.? Of their methodology they say:

“Our response is calibrated because it is based on data, not apocrypha. As a result, we make it clear that, while delay in general is endemic across our experience of the County Court system, the particular species of delay arising from asserted lack of judicial availability is primarily concentrated in 13 Courts in London and the South-East. Other Courts with significant sample sizes in the Period do not suffer from this species of delay.”

The particular species of delay they have identified arising from the Court Estate is the problem of late vacation or adjournment of hearings, “late” being defined as within 48 hours of trial date.? Anexo note this particularly afflicts courts with fewer hearing rooms:

“Our data identifies as the 13 which most commonly late vacated or adjourned our clients’ cases due to asserted lack of judicial availability were Willesden, Croydon, Clerkenwell & Shoreditch, Edmonton, Wandsworth, Bromley, Romford, Brentford, Uxbridge, Medway, Kingston, Bournemouth, and Dartford…Notably, Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester late vacated/adjourned only 1% or less of our cases (just 1 case each during the [2 year] Period), Central London only 3% and Mayors & City only 6%.”

Anexo conclude:

“The effect of these delays on litigants disproportionately impacts the marginalised and for personal injury cases, in far too many instances, result in hugely detrimental personal consequences.”

Grim but necessary reading.? We will return to this frayed tale over the next few days as we build toward the live evidence session at the House of Commons on Tuesday 7 May 2024 at 14.30.