DOCSLIB.ORG

Courts Boards - Responses to Consultation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Courts Boards - Responses to Consultation Public Bodies Bill: reforming the public bodies of the Ministry of Justice Courts Boards - responses to consultation Published 23 April 2012 Courts Boards - responses to consultation On-line questionnaire responses: 1. Anonymous 2. Anonymous 3. A Magistrate 4. Chris Bell 5. John Lawrence Carter 6. Edward Clarke 7. Stephen Pope 8. Martyn Weller 9. Brendan Fulham 10. Alex Cosgrove 11. Sheila Carmen Charles 12. Anonymous 13. Ray Palmer 14. Gareth Davies 15. Susan A Khan 16. Nicholas Moss Other responses: 1. Derek Bacon 2. Mencap 3. Magistrates’ Association 4. Kent, Surrey & Sussex Courts Board 5. Law Society 6. Local Government Group 7. Durham Constabulary and Durham Police Authority These are 16 responses submitted using the online questionnaire that was available on the MoJ website believe that there are any functions Question 7: Do of the Courts the proposals Boards that will not have any ID be adequately Question 6: In your opinion significant covered following how can local courts and direct impact on Conta the proposed tribunals reinforce the link you (if so, If so, please ct Represe Courts Boards Question 4. What are your views on the proposed abolition and Please state what these are and between them and the local please explain explain the Date of Contact Detail Contact ntative of abolition of the Courts Boards? suggested future your reasons. community? the impact)? impact: Name Position response Details Contact Details s Details a group? If propelry maanged courts listing decision should be made in a johnbmcr might open longer M14 1 Is rubbish and provides cover for vested interests to do nothing Yes cross CJS forum to make them as via the LCJB Yes Public 15-07-11 9 Moon Grove @gmail.co deal with more 5HE efficient aspossilbe m case and cost the public less money I still believe that citizens need The proposal has to be adviced and to feel that a slight impact on their voice has been heard. me because I am Sometimes it depends on how It all depends on the alternative not sure which site the information is been approaches that are in place to liaise to go to when I divulgated when considering with magistrates and local need to get the citizens that come from a communities and gather feedback information I diversity of cultures and from users. I believe an Impact usually use to gain backgrounds. At times it is the Assessment is still needed even if the by going on the case to simplify the use of proposal to abolish does not impact on Juth Justice technical words in order to As HMCTS is committed to building and maintaining links with local business, civil society or on regulatory Board, as I work reinforce the link to the wider communities, and local areas I am interested to know what are the matters. This is because Her Majesty's with a group of 2 Yes majority. Anyway I think that, if Yes other options that have been explored to ensure the link between Courts and Tribunals Service was only young man who the advisory function provided courts and local communities is not lost. created on 1 April 2011 and it is still in are excluded from by the Courts Board has been the process to develop its own mainstream replaced by alternative approaches to working with the wider education and who approaches in place to liaise community and to provide more local come from a very with magistrates and local accountability. It has not been proven deprived socio- communities and gather effective yet, that it will offer more economic feedback from users, like flexibility to adapt to changing background and activities such as customer circumstances. who are ex- satisfaction surveys, open days offenders or with and court user meetings there high risk of will not be an hindrance to the offending. process. 15th July 3 None Magistrate 2011 SHERGROUP HOUSE, FREEPORT The measures suggested at CHRIS POLICY 19 JULY CM77 4 I have no objection to their abolition. No No SHERGROUP OFFICE paragraph 44 are all worthy. BELL ADVISOR 2011 8YG VILLAGE, BRAINTREE, ESSEX Avon & Somerset Independent scrutiny of court , Devon & administration will be lost: almost all Cornwall I recognise the need for Ministry of Justice to make savings but the public bodies have some form of By retaining a body similar to As a Courts Board and Courts Board represent good value for money since they are low external scrutiny by public Courts Boards where members Chair I will lose my Gloucest cost. They provide a system of external scrutiny to the administration representatives. There is no evidence are appointed from the local role. This would ershire of courts services and have successfully held area directors to of this being provided for following the area to work and liaise with not be a major Courts account for the management of their role. There is no evidence that abolition of Courts Boards. Community senior managers. This is more issue if I Board: such external scrutiny will exist following the abolition of Courts links: the Courts Board provide an important than ever now that understood that Avon & members Boards. I believe that external scrutiny is an important aspect of efective way for court administrators to courts administrative areas are the key aspects of Somerset, hip public services in England and Wales. Courts Boards have provided hear "the voice" of the local becoming so large with senior John Courts the role of the 1st August Devon & Laggar Cottage, GL6 comprise 5 a way for the local community voice to inflence the provision of court Yes community. There is no provison for managers based remotely. In Yes Lawrence Board Courts Board were 2011 Cornwall and Westrip, Stroud 6HA s three services. Most court users "go through the system" at a time when community links following the abolition my locality there is a single Carter Chair being maintained Gloucestershir magistrat they are at a low ebb or in crisis and cannot provide good consumer of Courts Boards. There has been a delivery director for the whole of by another body or e Courts Board es, three feedback. The Courts Board can provide a more dispassionate and suggestion that magistrates are the South West including structure. communit objective overview of the administration of the courts to ensure volunteers from the community and Hampshire and the Isle of Unfortunately, y users are properly provided for. This is particularly important at a therefore represent it but by definition Wight. They do not have there is no represent time when facilities are being closed and services streamlined and they are not representative of the knowledge of the many local evidence that this atives, there is a danger of public confidence being lost in the legal system. community and become concerned communities and their view on is the case. three There is no evidence that in with their own role rather than the administration of court services. people wider community view on how justic with eis administered ina particular area. knowledg eof the new HMCTS any attempt at community links is being attempted. I will no longer be I believe Courts Board functions will able to access not be properly exercised by any open access user groups, publications of the alternative means particularly in the improved access to and Courts Board; Edward 12 Beach Road WV14 6 opposed to abolition Yes face of financial restrictions. Expertise Yes 19/08/11 publication of reports and diminishes Clarke Wolverhampton 6QF in this area will be lost and confidence information accountability / in the courts reduced. I have no confidence in the confidence in the consultation paper. law Band 6 Team My concerns will be in regard to efficiency and cost effectiveness. Stephen HMYOI\RC Tigers Road, LE18 7 No No Leader 23/09/2011 Will they be impacted on negatively Pope Glen Parva Leicester 4TN (healthcare ) More events such as inside I am an justice week, unfortunately the employer, funding for such events has a charity They have long been a talking shop with few real impacts on the day been withdrawn. We should be Martyn Disability 3 Apple Blossom YO24 trustee 8 No No Trustee to day operation of the courts. much more open the televising Weller Action Court 3HH and also of courts should include all the a proceedings and the mag magistrat courts as well. e Currently being a CB Chair my position will cease.................... By remaining available to a ..however having I believe there needs to be an indeopendant knowledgeable body to I believe the CB does have a local community to listen to the been a JP for over oversee the running of the Courts/Tribunals. Too often those in "standing" amongst the issues of concern to the Courts 30 yrs before I Ministerial positions or Civil Service positions do not, or cannot, see Courts/Tribunal Staff who have come Staff in that locality and stepped down I Courts the issues arising from day to day running requirements of the to trust the unbiased opinion and 23 possibly peculiar only to that believe I have a Brendan Board 9 system because they are unable to see the small picture and thus Yes assistance of the CB to resolve issues Yes September locality which can often be good Fulham Chair fall into the false belief the big picture says all they need to know; of a local nature which frequently 2011 missed or misunderstood by the unbderstanding of (CENS) however it is frequently those who have a day to day hands on become overlooked or remain "City dwellers" in the Civil the system thus experience who listen to and see the needs of the people operating unaddressed by the large Government Service and/or Government enabling me the system.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lord Chief Justice Delegation of Statutory Functions
    Delegation of Statutory Functions Lord Chief Justice – Delegation of Statutory Functions Introduction The Lord Chief Justice has a number of statutory functions, the exercise of which may be delegated to a nominated judicial office holder (as defined by section 109(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (the 2005 Act). This document sets out which judicial office holder has been nominated to exercise specific delegable statutory functions. Section 109(4) of the 2005 Act defines a judicial office holder as either a senior judge or holder of an office listed in schedule 14 to that Act. A senior judge, as defined by s109(5) of the 2005 Act refers to the following: the Master of the Rolls; President of the Queen's Bench Division; President of the Family Division; Chancellor of the High Court; Senior President of Tribunals; Lord or Lady Justice of Appeal; or a puisne judge of the High Court. Only the nominated judicial office holder to whom a function is delegated may exercise it. Exercise of the delegated functions cannot be sub- delegated. The nominated judicial office holder may however seek the advice and support of others in the exercise of the delegated functions. Where delegations are referred to as being delegated prospectively1, the delegation takes effect when the substantive statutory provision enters into force. The schedule is correct as at 12 May 2015.2 The delegations are currently subject to review by the Lord Chief Justice and a revised schedule will be published later in 2015. 1 See Interpretation Act 1978, section 13. 2 The LCJ has on three occasions suspended various delegations in order to make specific Practice Directions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Joint Inspection of the Devon and Cornwall Criminal Justice Area
    THE JOINT INSPECTION cpsi OF THE H M Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate DEVON AND CORNWALL CRIMINAL JUSTICE AREA ON-SITE SEPTEMBER 2006 FEBRUARY 2007 HM Inspectorate of Court Administration THE JOINT INSPECTION cpsi OF THE H M Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate DEVON AND CORNWALL CRIMINAL JUSTICE AREA ON-SITE SEPTEMBER 2006 FEBRUARY 2007 HM Inspectorate of Court Administration THE JOINT INSPECTION OF THE DEVON AND CORNWALL CRIMINAL JUSTICE AREA ON-SITE SEPTEMBER 2006 FEBRUARY 2007 The Joint Inspection Report on the Devon and Cornwall Criminal Justice Area The Joint Inspection Report on the Devon and Cornwall Criminal Justice Area CONTENTS Preface 1. Introduction . .1 Devon, Cornwall and the Isle of Scilly . 1 Devon and Cornwall Criminal Justice Board. 1 Scope of inspection . 2 Methodology . 2 Structure of the report. 3 2. Executive Summary . .5 Overview. 5 Public confidence and community engagement . 6 Bringing offenders to justice . 6 Reducing ineffective trials. 7 The treatment of victims and witnesses. 8 The treatment of defendants . 8 The enforcement of community sentences . 8 Key performance results. 9 3. The governance and structure of the Devon and Cornwall Criminal Justice Board . 13 Overview. 13 Governance. 13 Structure . 15 Strategic plan and direction . 16 Accountability . 16 The criminal justice office. 18 4. Improving public confidence and community engagement . 19 Overview. 19 Improving public confidence. 19 Equality and diversity . 20 Strategic partnerships . 21 5. Bringing offenders to justice. .23 Overview. 23 Offences brought to justice . 23 Pre-charge advice and decision-making scheme . 25 The structure of the statutory charging scheme . 25 The operation of the scheme .
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal on the Provision of Courts Services in Wales
    Proposal on the provision of courts services in Wales Consultation Paper CP15/10 Published on 23 June 2010 This consultation will end on 15 September 2010 Proposal on the provision of courts services in Wales A consultation produced by Her Majesty's Courts Service, part of the Ministry of Justice. It is also available on the Ministry of Justice website at www.justice.gov.uk Proposal on the provision of courts services in Wales Contents The HMCS national estates strategy 3 Introduction 5 Magistrates’ courts in Dyfed Powys 7 Magistrates’ courts in Gwent 17 Magistrates’ courts in South Wales 23 Magistrates’ courts in North Wales 32 County courts in Wales 39 Annex A – Map of proposals 47 Questionnaire 49 About you 54 Contact details/How to respond 55 The consultation criteria 57 Consultation Co-ordinator contact details 58 1 Proposal on the provision of courts services in Wales 2 Proposal on the provision of courts services in Wales The HMCS national estates strategy HMCS is committed to providing a high quality courts service within a reasonable travelling distance of the communities that use it, while ensuring value for money for taxpayers. HMCS currently operates out of 530 courthouses – 330 magistrates’ courts, 219 county courts and 91 Crown Court centres.1 However, the number and location of these does not reflect changes in population, workload or transport and communication links over the years since many of them were opened. This has resulted in some courts sitting infrequently and hearing too few cases. Some buildings do not provide suitable facilities for those attending or are not fully accessible for disabled court users.
    [Show full text]
  • State Court Organization, 1998 Conference of State Court Administrators, Court Statistics Committee
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics State Court Organization 1998 Victim-offender relationship in violent crimes (rape/sexual assault, robbery, and assault) by sex of victim Courts and judges Judicial selection and service Judicial branch Appellate courts Trial courts The jury The sentencing context Court structure U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics State Court Organization 1998 By David B. Rottman Carol R. Flango Melissa T. Cantrell Randall Hansen Neil LaFountain A joint effort of Conference of State Court Administrators and National Center for State Courts June 2000, NCJ 178932 U.S Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D. Director, BJS This Bureau of Justice Statistics report was prepared by the National Center for State Courts under the Supervision of Steven K. Smith and Marika F.X. Litras of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The project was supported by BJS grant number 98-BJ-CX-K002. Principle staff for the project at the National Center for State Courts were David B. Rottman, Ph.D., Carol R. Flango, Melissa T. Cantrell, Randall Hansen, and Neil LaFountain. Tom Hester and Carol DeFrances of BJS provided editorial review. Jayne Robinson administered final production. This report was made possible by the support and guidance of the Court Statistics Committee of the Conference of State Court Administrators. Please bring suggestions for information that should be included in future editions to the attention of the Director of the Court Statistics Project, National Center for State Courts, 300 Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-8798.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Service and CPS Paper.Pdf
    Northern Ireland Assembly Research and Library Service- Equality, Rights, Crime and Institutions Team BRIEFING PAPER: Court Service and Public Prosecution Models in England and Wales and Northern Ireland 1 November 2007 INTRODUCTION This briefing is prepared for Members of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, to facilitate their understanding of both the Court Service and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in England and Wales and to compare these with proposals for change to the Northern Ireland (NI) Court Service and the Public Prosecution Service in NI (PPSNI), in view of possible devolution of Policing and Justice to NI. Section 1.0 of this briefing provides information on the Court Service in England and Wales, outlining the basic information, for example, the role and organisational structure of the Court Service. Section 2.0 outlines background information on the CPS in England and Wales, and as in the previous section, outlines basic information such as the role and organisational structure of the service. Section 3.0 concerns the NI Court Service and the PPSNI. This section sets out background information such as the role and organisational structure of both services and sets out some of the proposals for future governance arrangements in relation to both. Section 4.0 identifies potential issues arising from the previous sections which the Committee may wish to consider. Section 1.0 -The Court Service in England and Wales This section outlines the following: 1.1 Legislative basis of the Court Service in England and Wales; 1.2 Role of the Court Service; 1.3 Accountability of the Court Service; 1.4 Organisational Structure and governance arrangements of the Court Service.
    [Show full text]
  • STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS 1997 Annual Meeting
    Conference of CHIEF JUSTICES Conference of STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS 1997 Annual Meeting Cleveland, Ohio Conference of Conference of Chief Justices State Court Administrators Abrahamson, Shirley S. Wisconsin Baldwin, Robert N. Virginia Amestoy, Jeffrey L. Vermont Bauermeister, Mercedes M. Puerto Rico Anderson, E. Riley Tennessee Becker, Daniel Utah Andreu-Garda, Jose A. Puerto Rico Benedict, Jerry L. Texas Arnold, W. H. (Dub) Arkansas Berson, Steven V. Colorado Bell, Robert M. Maryland Broderick, Michael F. Hawaii Benham, Robert Georgia Buenger, Michael L. South Dakota Benton, Duane Missouri Byers, David K. Arizona Brock, David A. New Hampshire Cameron, Dallas A., Jr. North Carolina Callahan, Robert J. Connecticut Chenovick, Patrick A. Montana Calogero, Pascal E, Jr. Louisiana Ciancia, James J. New Jersey Carrico, Harry L. Virginia Click, Kingsley W. Oregon Carson, Wallace P., Jr. Oregon Cole, Stephanie J. Alaska Chapel, Charles S. Oklahoma Collins, Hugh M. Louisiana Durham, Barbara Washington Conyers, Howard W. Oklahoma Finney, Ernest A., Jr. South Carolina Dosal, Sue K. Minnesota F1aherj:y, John P. Pennsylvania Doss, Robert L., Jr. Georgia Franchini, Gene E. New Mexico Ferrell, Charles E. Tennessee Freeman, Charles E. Illinois Ferry, John D., Jr. Michigan George, Ronald M. California Gingerich, James D. Arkansas Hodge, Verne A. Virgin Islands Glessner, James T. Maine Hooper, Perry 0., Sr. Alabama Goodnow, Donald D. New Hampshire Kauger, Yvonne Oklahoma Greacen, John M. New Mexico Kaye, Judith S. New York Gregory, Frank W. Alabama Keith, A. M. (Sandy) Minnesota Groundland, Lowell L. Delaware Kogan, Gerald Florida Guerrero, Edward C. D. Northern Mariana Islands Kruse, E Michael American Samoa Hammond, Ulysses B. District of Columbia Lee, Dan M.
    [Show full text]
  • Chief Justices State Court Administrators
    Conference of CHIEF JUSTICES Conference of STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS *:* *:* 1995 *:* 1995 Annual Meeting Monterey, California Conference of Conference of Chief Justices State Court Administrators Allen, Frederic W. Vermont Baldwin, Robert N. Virginia Anderson, E. Riley Tennessee Bauermeister, Mercedes M. Puerto Rico Andr&Garcia, Jose A. Puerto Rico Berson, Steven V. Colorado Baca, Joseph F. New Mexico Buenger, Michael L. South Dakota Benham, Robert Georgia Byers, David K. Arizona Bilandic, Michael A. Illinois Cetrulo, Don Kentucky Brickley, James H. Michigan Chenovick, Patrick A. Montana Brock, David A. New Hampshire Click, Kingsley W. Oregon Calogero, Pascal E, Jr. Louisiana Collins, Hugh M. Louisiana Carrico, Harry L. Virginia Conyers, Howard W. Oklahoma Carson, Wallace P., Jr. Oregon Dosal, Sue K. Minnesota Durham, Barbara Washington Doss, Robert L., Jr. Georgia Feldman, Stanley G. Arizona Drennan, James C. North Carolina Finney, Ernest A., Jr. South Carolina Duncan, Robert L. Wyoming Golden, Michael Wyoming Ferrell, Charles E. Tennessee Grimes, Stephen H. Florida Gilmore, Oliver Alabama Hawkins, Armis E. Mississippi Gingerich, James D. Arkansas Heffernan, Nathan S. Wisconsin Glessner, James T. Maine Hodge, Verne A. Virgin Islands Greenwood, Pamela T. Utah Holmes, Richard W. Kansas Groundland, Lowell L. Delaware Holstein, John C. Missouri Hall, Marilyn K. Michigan Holt, Jack, Jr. Arkansas Hammond, Ulysses B. District of Columbia Hornsby, Sonny Alabama Harrall, Robert C. Rhode Island Johnson, Charles A. 0k 1ah o m a Irwin, John J., Jr. Massachusetts Kaye, Judith S. New York Judice, C. Raymond Texas Keith, A. M. (Sandy) Minnesota Kanter, Deborah New Mexico Kruse, F. Michael American Samoa Kotzan, Bruce A. Indiana Lamorena, Albert0 C., 111 Guam Larkin, Ronald L.
    [Show full text]
  • State Courts
    s 985 . , I In the heart of the Bluegrass State, thoroughbred horses in rolling, . , white-fenced pastures, graze near . Lexington. Kentucky-bred racehorses are world-famous. fllusmm~onsbyPam Vat, public infmticn rupenriror for the Kentucky Adminismarice Office ofthe Coum 1985 Annual Meeting Library Notional Center for State Cdrts 30) Newport Ave. Wi!;*c:r.:iura-. \'A 231 s5 Lexington, Kentucky The Kentucky Judicial System The Commonwealth of Kentucky has a unified court system, instituted in 1976 after voters approved a new judicial article for the state’s 183-year-old constitution. Full imple- mentation of the system took effect in 1978, providing a four-tiered court of justice consist- ing of the supreme court, the court of appeals, the circuit court, and the district court. Kentucky’s supreme court is located in Frankfort, the state capital. The supreme court has appellate jurisdiction only, except that it has the power to issue all writs necessary in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or the complete determination of any cause, or as may be re- quired to exercise control over the entire court of justice. Appeals from a circuit court judgment imposing a sentence of death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for 20 years or more are taken directly to the supreme court. Decisions of the court of appeals may be ap- pealed to the supreme court if granted a discretionary review as prescribed by rule of court. A cause may be transferred from the court of appeals to the supreme court when the case is of great and immediate public importance. The supreme court establishes rules of practice and procedure for the entire court of justice, for the conduct of judges, and for procedures to be followed by all state court officials.
    [Show full text]
  • Business Courts: They Are Coming to Kentucky (Part Ii)
    BUSINESS COURTS: THEY ARE COMING TO KENTUCKY (PART II) CLE Credit: 1.0 Sponsor: KBA Business Law Section Friday, June 14, 2019 11:20 a.m. – 12:20 p.m. French Galt House Hotel Louisville, Kentucky A NOTE CONCERNING THE PROGRAM MATERIALS The materials included in this Kentucky Bar Association Continuing Legal Education handbook are intended to provide current and accurate information about the subject matter covered. No representation or warranty is made concerning the application of the legal or other principles discussed by the instructors to any specific fact situation, nor is any prediction made concerning how any particular judge or jury will interpret or apply such principles. The proper interpretation or application of the principles discussed is a matter for the considered judgement pf the induvial legal practitioner. The faculty and staff of this Kentucky Bar Association CLE program disclaim liability therefore. Attorneys using these materials, or information otherwise conveyed during the program in dealing with a specific legal matter have a duty to research the original and current sources of authority. Printed by: Evolution Creative Solutions 7107 Shona Drive Cincinnati, Ohio 45237 Kentucky Bar Association TABLE OF CONTENTS The Presenters ................................................................................................................. i Kentucky Supreme Court Order ...................................................................................... 1 Business Courts: A National Trend .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Directory of Regulators of the Legal Profession
    Directory of Regulators of the Legal Profession International Bar Association 2016 Introduction The IBA Bar Issues Commission has produced this global directory of regulators of lawyers as a resource for practising lawyers and Bar Associations. The directory identifies the bodies who are responsible in each jurisdiction for the regulation of lawyers at various key stages, from qualification/entry to the profession, through ethics and conduct rules to disciplinary matters. The directory also gives some basic details on the governing legislation in those jurisdictions where there is a statutory basis for the profession and provides links to the relevant legislation where possible. We are grateful to a large number of Bar Associations and individual IBA members who helped to verify the information contained in this directory. The companion, searchable directory on the IBA’s Website lists all of those who assisted us in producing this resource. In some instances the information given in the directory is based on desk research and has not been officially verified by the jurisdiction concerned. Where this is the case, this is made clear. If you are able to assist with the confirmation or correction of any of the listings that have not yet been verified, this would be greatly appreciated. Similarly, if you are able to provide information about a jurisdiction that has not yet been covered, or if you have an update on one of the jurisdictions listed below, please get in touch with Becca Verhagen at the IBA’s London Office ([email protected]). Jonathan Herman and Søren Jenstrup Co-Chairs, Bar Issues Commission Regulation Subcommittee 2 Contents Which countries does the Directory cover? ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Business and Property Courts the Commercial Court Report 2018-2019 (Including the Admiralty Court Report)
    Business and Property Courts The Commercial Court Report 2018-2019 (Including the Admiralty Court Report) Business and Property Courts The Commercial Court Report 2018-2019 (Including the Admiralty Court Report) © Crown copyright 2020 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/version/3/ or email [email protected] Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.judiciary.uk Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] Published by Judicial Office 11th floor Thomas More Building Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL www.judiciary.uk The Commercial Court Report 2018-2019 Contents Introduction 5 The Courts 6 The work of the Commercial Court 6 Arbitration 7 The work of the Admiralty Court 8 Sources and Volume of the Courts’ work 10 The sources of the courts’ business 10 The volume of the business of the Commercial Court 10 The volume of the business of the Admiralty Court 11 The Financial List 12 Case Management 13 Shorter and Flexible Trials and expedition 15 Disclosure 16 Witness statements 18 Managing the Courts’ Business 20 Lead times 20 CE-File 21 Listing issues 21 Long vacation sittings 21 The Judges of the Court 22 Use of deputy judges in the Commercial Court 23 The Registry and
    [Show full text]
  • Supporting Magistrates' Courts to Provide Justice CM 6681
    Supporting Magistrates’ Courts to Provide Justice Supporting Magistrates’ Courts to Provide Justice Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor by Command of Her Majesty November 2005 Cm 6681 £10.00 © Crown Copyright 2005 The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and departmental logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing that it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Any enquiries relating to the copyright in this document should be addressed to The Licensing Division, HMSO, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 723000 or e-mail: [email protected] Supporting Magistrates’ Courts to Provide Justice Contents Foreword 4 Executive summary 5 Introduction: The magistrates’ courts in context 8 1 Communities – Connected 13 2 Courts – Respected 18 3 Courts – Effective 28 4 Recruitment and retention of the magistracy 37 5 Conclusion 47 3 Supporting Magistrates’ Courts to Provide Justice Foreword by the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor It is difficult to over-estimate the contribution magistrates’ courts make to their local communities. They are a permanent part of our justice system. Each and every day they sit, the courts help to make our communities safer and more secure. They deal with the small minority of people who commit crime and anti-social behaviour. They respond quickly and effectively to childcare cases. And they help people resolve their disputes as fairly as possible.
    [Show full text]