DOCSLIB.ORG

Judicial and Court Statistics 2009

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Judicial and Court Statistics 2009 Judicial and Court Statistics 2009 Version 1.1 - revised October 2010 Version 1.1 - Revised October 2010 - revisions to pages 127 and 130. Contents Introductory Note 3 Background on the court system in England and Wales 5 Main findings 7 1. County courts (non-family) 13 2. Family matters 43 3. Magistrates’ courts 65 4. The Crown Court 91 5. High Court – Chancery Division 125 6. High Court – Queen’s Bench Division 135 7. Appellate Courts 149 8. The Mental Capacity Act 177 9. Offices of the Supreme Court 189 10. The Judiciary 195 11. Assessment of litigation costs, and publicly funded legal services 207 Annex A: Data quality and sources 219 Glossary 235 Explanatory notes 243 Contacts 244 Judicial and Court Statistics 2009 | Introductory Note Introductory Note This report presents statistics on judicial and court activity in England and Wales in 2009. It was formally entitled “Judicial Statistics” for the 2005 edition and earlier years, which was published by the Department for Constitutional Affairs and its predecessors. Report structure This report provides statistics on activity in the county, family, Crown and magistrates’ courts of England and Wales along with statistics on the work of the High Court, Court of Appeal, UK Supreme Court and some associated offices and agencies, such as the Court of Protection, the Office of the Public Guardian and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Chapters 1 to 7 each start with a commentary section which includes a brief description of the function, constitution and jurisdiction of the relevant court type, an explanation of some of the procedures involved, and description of the latest statistics and trends. The chapters conclude with statistical tables. Chapter 8 provides summary statistics on casework of the Court of Protection and the Office of the Public Guardian, while Chapter 9 contains casework data relating to the Offices of the Supreme Court. Chapters 10 and 11 deal with the judiciary and assessment of litigation costs and publicly funded legal services, respectively. The statistics give a summary overview of the volume of cases dealt with by these courts and offices over time, broken down for the main types of case involved. The statistics are used to monitor court workloads, to assist in the development of policy, and their subsequent monitoring and evaluation. Annex A provides summary information on data sources for the figures given in this report, along with a brief discussion on data quality and highlighting any significant revisions compared to previously published statistics. There is also a Glossary section which provides brief definitions for some of the main terms used in this report. Information about statistical revisions, forthcoming changes and the symbols and conventions used in the bulletin are given in the Explanatory Notes section. 3 Judicial and Court Statistics 2009 | Introductory Note Other court statistics published by the Ministry of Justice Provisional statistics on many aspects of activity in the county, family, Crown and magistrates’ courts of England and Wales in 2009 have already been published by the Ministry of Justice in the statistical bulletin “Court Statistics Quarterly”. The statistics presented in “Judicial and Court Statistics” constitute final figures for 2009, and show more detailed tables than in the quarterly report. Most revisions compared to the figures already published in Court Statistics Quarterly reflect updates to administrative data sources since figures were first compiled. This report is published at the same time as the Q2 (April to June) 2010 edition of Court Statistics Quarterly. These statistical bulletins are available from the Ministry of Justice website at: www.justice.gov.uk/publications/judicialandcourtstatistics.htm www.justice.gov.uk/publications/courtstatisticsquarterly.htm The Ministry of Justice also publishes three quarterly statistical reports focusing on a particular aspect of court workload in detail, covering statistics on the timeliness of criminal cases in the magistrates’ courts (summary statistics also shown in Chapter 3 of this report), mortgage and landlord possession actions in the county courts, and company winding-up and bankruptcy petitions in the county courts. These bulletins are also available from the Ministry of Justice website at, respectively: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/timeintervals.htm http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/mortgatelandlordpossession.htm http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/companywindingupandbankruptcy.htm If you have any feedback, questions or requests for further information about this statistical bulletin, please direct them to the appropriate contact given at the end of this report. Tribunals’ statistics Although this report contains statistics on appeals against the decisions of various tribunals’, it does not contain statistics on the work of the Tribunals Service and the Tribunals judiciary. Quarterly statistics on the workload in the Tribunals Service can be found at: http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/Tribunals/Publications/publications.htm If you have a specific query regarding statistics for the Tribunals Service, please contact: [email protected] 4 Judicial and Court Statistics 2009 | Background on the court system in England and Wales Background on the court system in England and Wales Virtually all criminal cases in England and Wales start in a magistrates’ court. The less serious offences are handled entirely in magistrates’ courts. More serious offences are passed on to the Crown Court, either for sentencing after the defendant has been found guilty in a magistrates’ court, or for a full trial with a judge and jury. The Crown Court also receives appeals against decisions of the magistrates’ courts. Cases in the magistrates’ courts are heard by either two or three lay magistrates (local people who volunteer their services, who may not have formal legal qualifications but will have undertaken a training programme to develop the necessary skills) or by one District Judge (legally qualified, paid, full-time professionals, who are usually based in the larger cities and normally hear the more complex or sensitive cases). Crown Court cases may be heard by Circuit Judges, Recorders or a High Court Judge, depending on the seriousness of the offence. The vast majority of civil cases in England and Wales which do not involve family matters or failure to pay council tax or child maintenance are handled in the county courts. These cases are typically related to debt, the repossession of property, personal injury and insolvency. Once a claim has been served, the usual options for the defendant are to do nothing, pay up, admit the claim and ask for more time to pay up, and/or dispute the claim. The vast majority of claims are either not defended, or settle or are withdrawn before a hearing or trial. Particularly important, complex or substantial cases are dealt with in the High Court. All family matters in England and Wales are dealt with at Family Proceedings Courts (which are part of the magistrates’ courts), at county courts or in the Family Division of the High Court. Family courts deal with matters such as: parental disputes, local authority intervention to protect children, matrimonial cases such as divorce petitions, the financial provisions for children after divorce or relationship breakdown, domestic violence remedies and adoption. As noted above, some civil and family cases are generally dealt with in the High Court rather than in a lower court. The High Court’s Chancery Division primarily deals with the resolution of disputes involving property (e.g. land, business, and intellectual property), taxation, mortgages, insolvency, and others. The High Court’s Queen’s Bench Division deals mainly with civil actions in contract and tort (civil wrongs), and also deals with more specialist matters such as 5 Judicial and Court Statistics 2009 | Background on the court system in England and Wales applications for judicial reviews. As well as dealing with such cases outright, the High Court also hears appeals involving such matters where they were originally heard in the county and magistrates’ courts. Most proceedings in the High Court are heard by a single judge, but certain kinds of proceedings may be heard by two or more judges. On rare occasions cases may have a jury. The Court of Appeal of England and Wales is the second most senior court in the country. The Court of Appeal’s Criminal Division hears appeals concerning criminal matters originally dealt with at the Crown Court, while the Civil Division hears appeals concerning cases heard at the county courts and High Court (and also from tribunals). Permission to appeal is required, either from the lower court or the Court of Appeal itself. The judges of the Court of Appeal are the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and 37 Lords Justices. The United Kingdom Supreme Court was created in October 2009 and replaced the House of Lords as the highest court in the United Kingdom. Decisions made by the Court of Appeal may be further appealed to the Supreme Court (in some civil matters dealt with at the High Court an appeal may be made directly to the Supreme Court). The Supreme Court hears appeals on arguable points of law of the greatest public importance, bearing in mind that the cases will have already been the subject of judicial decision in a lower court. It hears appeals for the whole of the United Kingdom in civil cases, and for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in criminal cases. Additionally, it hears cases on devolution matters. There are 12 Justices of the Supreme Court in total; cases are typically heard by a panel of three to nine of the Justices. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the final Court of Appeal for 23 Commonwealth territories and four independent republics within the Commonwealth. It also hears appeals from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and appeals within the UK relating to a small number of matters such as veterinary work and pastoral schemes.
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]
  • Lancaster Castle: the Rebuilding of the County Gaol and Courts
    Contrebis 2019 v37 LANCASTER CASTLE: THE REBUILDING OF THE COUNTY GAOL AND COURTS John Champness Abstract This paper details the building and rebuilding of Lancaster Castle in the late-eighteenth and early- nineteenth centuries to expand and improve the prison facilities there. Most of the present buildings in the Castle date from a major scheme of extending the County Gaol, undertaken in the last years of the eighteenth century. The principal architect was Thomas Harrison, who had come to Lancaster in 1782 after winning the competition to design Skerton Bridge (Champness 2005, 16). The scheme arose from concern about the unsatisfactory state of the Gaol which was largely unchanged from the medieval Castle (Figure 1). Figure 1. Plan of Lancaster Castle taken from Mackreth’s map of Lancaster, 1778 People had good reasons for their concern, because life in Georgian gaols was somewhat disorganised. The major reason lay in how the role of gaols had been expanded over the years in response to changing pressures. County gaols had originally been established in the Middle Ages to provide short-term accommodation for only two groups of people – those awaiting trial at the twice- yearly Assizes, and convicted criminals who were waiting for their sentences to be carried out, by hanging or transportation to an overseas colony. From the late-seventeenth century, these people were joined by debtors. These were men and women with cash-flow problems, who could avoid formal bankruptcy by forfeiting their freedom until their finances improved. During the mid- eighteenth century, numbers were further increased by the imprisonment of ‘felons’, that is, convicted criminals who had not been sentenced to death, but could not be punished in a local prison or transported.
    [Show full text]
  • OPENING up the FAMILY COURTS – WHAT HAPPENED to CHILDREN’S RIGHTS? Julie Doughty? Introduction
    J. Doughty: Family Courts – what happened to Children’s rights? 10 CIL 1 OPENING UP THE FAMILY COURTS – WHAT HAPPENED TO CHILDREN’S RIGHTS? Julie Doughty? Introduction The principle of open justice underlies public accessibility to courts and accountability of decision-making through publicity and freedom of infor- mation. This is modified in family proceedings, especially where children are involved and we shy away from the idea of ‘trial as a public spectacle’.1 In the leading early 20th century case upholding the principle even in mat- rimonial disputes, matters affecting children were excepted as ‘truly pri- vate affairs’.2 However, the law is now in the process of being reformed to bring family courts more into line with other types of courts in England and Wales. The consultation process that led to the changes included com- mitments to take the views and interests of children and young people into account. Not only do these commitments remain unmet, but the proposed changes pose a number of new challenges to children’s rights and welfare. In December 2008, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, announced to Parliament that court rules would be changed to allow representatives of the media to attend family court pro- ceedings, as of right, which they had previously been unable to do.3 This announcement coincided with the publication of Family Justice in View: Ministry of Justice Response to Consultation.4 The decision on media atten- dance came as some surprise to observers, because it contradicted an
    [Show full text]
  • CONTACT DETAILS Mrs Baljeet Basra Professional Standards
    CONTACT DETAILS Mrs Baljeet Basra Professional Standards Manager ILEX Professional Standards Ltd Kempston Manor Kempston Bedford MK42 7AB Tel: 01234 845776 07792 774937 Email: [email protected] ILEX Professional Standards Ltd company registration number: 6712409 CILEx company registration: RC000850 Page 1 Page 2 CONTENTS PART 1 – Introduction ………………………………………………………………………….……… 5 PART 2 – CILEx, IPS and CILEx members ……………………………………………………… 13 PART 3 - Regulatory objectives & better regulation principles…………………………… 31 PART 4 - Qualification scheme……………………………………………………………………… 51 PART 5 - Entity regulation……………………………………………………………………………… 75 PART 6 - Outcomes focused regulation………………………………………………………… 147 PART 7 - Compliance with s.112 & s.145 Legal Services Act 2007…………………… 175 PART 8 - Enforcement arrangements…………………………………………………………… 183 PART 9 - Indemnification arrangements………………………………………………………… 193 PART 10 – Compensation arrangements……………………………………………………… 205 PART 11 – Delivery of the scheme ……………………………………………………………… 211 Page 3 Page 4 PART 1 - INTRODUCTION PART 1 INTRODUCTION Page 5 PART 1 - INTRODUCTION PART 1 – INTRODUCTION THE APPLICATION 1. The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) is an approved regulator under the Legal Services Act 2007 (the Act). In accordance with the Act CILEx has separated its regulatory functions from its representative functions by delegating its regulatory functions to ILEX Professional Standards Ltd (IPS). 2. CILEx awards rights of audience to Chartered Legal Executives and Associate Prosecutor members; and rights to conduct litigation to Associate Prosecutor members. 3. This application is made, in accordance with rules issued by the Legal Services Board under Part 3 of Schedule 4 of the Act, by IPS to the Legal Services Board (LSB) for approval to amend its regulatory arrangements for CILEx to grant rights to conduct litigation to Chartered Legal Executives; and rights of audience to Chartered Legal Executives who obtain rights to conduct litigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Claim Form Commercial Court N1 (CC) : CPR Part 7 : V4.0 Royal Courts of Justice
    In the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division Claim Form Commercial Court N1 (CC) : CPR Part 7 : v4.0 Royal Courts of Justice Claim number Claim title Notes for completion Once completed please e-mail this form to [email protected]. You will receive a 'sealed for service' version and an amendable version of the form by return of e-mail. Claimant(s) Add New Claimant Clear All Claimants Name Address Postcode Country Telephone No Delete this Claimant Add New Claimant Defendant(s) Add New Defendant Clear All Defendants Defendants unknown at present Name Address Postcode Country Telephone No Delete this Defendant Add New Defendant The court office at the Admiralty and Commercial Registry, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL is open from 10:00am to 4:30pm Monday to Friday. When corresponding with the court, please address forms or letters to the Court Manager and quote the claim number. Page 1 of 3 Financial information Non-Monetary What type of claim is this ? Monetary Only Part Monetary Relief Court fee breakdown Non-monetary relief fee (if applicable) £0.00 Part 7 fee £0.00 Court fee total £0.00 Solicitors costs (£) GBP. To be assessed Reset Financial Data Brief details of claim You should type into this section a concise statement of the nature of the claim, together with the remedy sought and statement of value where appropriate pursuant to CPR 16.2(1) (Part 7 Claim) or CPR 8.2(Part 8 Claim). If you wish to file more detailed particulars of claim with this claim form you can use the attachment option in section 4b, or you may file them separately at a later stage using the 'MultiPurpose' form which will be available to you once you have issued.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Reform in England
    Comments COURT REFORM IN ENGLAND A reading of the Beeching report' suggests that the English court reform which entered into force on 1 January 1972 was the result of purely domestic considerations. The members of the Commission make no reference to the civil law countries which Great Britain will join in an important economic and political regional arrangement. Yet even a cursory examination of the effects of the reform on the administration of justice in England and Wales suggests that English courts now resemble more closely their counterparts in Western Eu- rope. It should be stated at the outset that the new organization of Eng- lish courts is by no means the result of the 1971 Act alone. The Act crowned the work of various legislative measures which have brought gradual change for a period of well over a century, including the Judicature Acts 1873-75, the Interpretation Act 1889, the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925, the Administration of Justice Act 1933, the County Courts Act 1934, the Criminal Appeal Act 1966 and the Criminal Law Act 1967. The reform culminates a prolonged process of response to social change affecting the legal structure in England. Its effect was to divorce the organization of the courts from tradition and history in order to achieve efficiency and to adapt the courts to new tasks and duties which they must meet in new social and economic conditions. While the earlier acts, including the 1966 Criminal Appeal Act, modernized the structure of the Supreme Court of Judicature, the 1971 Act extended modern court structure to the intermediate level, creating the new Crown Court, and provided for the regular admin- istration of justice in civil matters by the High Court in England and Wales, outside the Royal Courts in London.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Specialist Domestic Violence Courts/ Fast Track Systems
    rri Evaluation of Specialist Domestic Violence Courts/ Fast Track Systems Dee Cook Mandy Burton Amanda Robinson Christine Vallely March 2004 Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the representatives from all five sites of the Crown Prosecution Service, the Police, the Magistrates’ Courts Service, Witness Service, Derby City Partnership, Leeds Inter-Agency Partnership, Cardiff Women’s Safety Unit, Standing Together, HALT, ADVANCE, Eaves, West Yorkshire Probation Service, Wolverhampton Criminal Justice Support Services Co-ordinator and The Haven. This study could not have been completed without the cooperation and efforts of CPS staff and prosecutors who, on top of their already busy schedules, assisted with data collection. We are very grateful to all those at the agencies listed above for their time and their views. We should also like to thank our research assistants Jasmin Tregidga, Anna Clancy, Kulbir Kaur and Angela Morgan for their work in coding and entering the data from the CPS files. List of Abbreviations and Common Terms ABH – it is an offence under s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 to assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Advocates/advocacy support: Through victim support workers Bail – Period of adjournment. Can be imposed by the Court and the Police. Can be conditional or unconditional. Bindover – specify a sum of money over a specific period of time that requires defendants to keep the peace CJU – Criminal Justice Unit. This is a term that applies to both the Police and the CPS office that deals with a particular Magistrates Court area. CJS – Criminal Justice System Cracked trial – This is a case, which has been set down for trial, but the case has been terminated on the day of trial.
    [Show full text]
  • CPS Sussex Overall Performance Assessment Undertaken August 2007
    CPS Sussex Overall Performance Assessment Undertaken August 2007 Promoting Improvement in Criminal Justice HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate CPS Sussex Overall Performance Assessment Undertaken August 2007 Promoting Improvement in Criminal Justice HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate CPS Sussex Overall Performance Assessment Report 2007 ABBREVIATIONS Common abbreviations used in this report are set out below. Local abbreviations are explained in the report. ABM Area Business Manager HMCPSI Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate ABP Area Business Plan JDA Judge Directed Acquittal AEI Area Effectiveness Inspection JOA Judge Ordered Acquittal ASBO Anti-Social Behaviour Order JPM Joint Performance Monitoring BCU Basic Command Unit or Borough Command Unit LCJB Local Criminal Justice Board BME Black and Minority Ethnic MAPPA Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements CCP Chief Crown Prosecutor MG3 Form on which a record of the CJA Criminal Justice Area charging decision is made CJS Criminal Justice System NCTA No Case to Answer CJSSS Criminal Justice: Simple, Speedy, NRFAC Non Ring-Fenced Administrative Summary Costs CJU Criminal Justice Unit NWNJ No Witness No Justice CMS Case Management System OBTJ Offences Brought to Justice CPIA Criminal Procedure and OPA Overall Performance Assessment Investigations Act PCD Pre-Charge Decision CPO Case Progression Officer PCMH Plea and Case Management Hearing CPS Crown Prosecution Service POCA Proceeds of Crime Act CPSD CPS Direct PTPM Prosecution Team Performance CQA Casework
    [Show full text]
  • Protocol and Good Practice Model: Disclosure of Information in Cases
    2013 Protocol and Good Practice Model Disclosure of information in cases of alleged child abuse and linked criminal and care directions hearings October 2013 Association of Chief Police Officers Association of Directors of Children Services Association of Independent Local Safeguarding Children Board Chairs Crown Prosecution Service Department for Education HM Courts & Tribunals Service Local Government Association President of the Family Division Senior Presiding Judge for England and Wales Welsh Government Contents 1. Parties .............................................................................................................. 3 2. Scope ............................................................................................................... 3 3. Aims and Objectives ........................................................................................ 4 Part A: Disclosure into the Family Justice System ............................................... 5 4. Local authority request to the police for disclosure .......................................... 5 5. Notification by the police to the local authority of the existence and status of criminal investigation ........................................................................................ 5 6. Voluntary disclosure by police/CPS to local authority and into the family justice system .................................................................................................. 6 7. Family court proceedings: orders for disclosure against the police and/or the CPS
    [Show full text]
  • In the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man Civil Division Probate Application Form
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ISLE OF MAN CIVIL DIVISION PROBATE APPLICATION FORM Please refer to the GUIDANCE NOTES to assist you in completing this form. Please use CAPITAL LETTERS The Guidance Notes can be viewed online at https://www.courts.im/court-procedures/probate-and-admin-of-estates/ or they can be obtained by email from [email protected] or by telephoning (01624) 685243 There are guidance notes provided to help you complete this probate application form. They should not be treated as a complete and authoritative statement of the law. Please note that Probate Office staff members are not permitted to give legal advice or offer opinions and therefore if you are in any doubt about your rights, or the procedures to follow in relation to obtaining probate, you should seek legal advice. The Probate Staff can however provide assistance in the completion of this form. Where required, please refer to the Glossary of Terms of commonly used legal expressions in the Guidance Notes. Section A – Details of the Deceased 1. Surname Title MR MRS MISS MS OTHER 2. Forename(s) 3. Alias name(s) – (if any) 4. Address (enter last, full permanent address, including postcode) 5. Place of Domicile 6. Nationality 7. Occupation (if any) 8. Date of Death (Death Certificate attached herewith) 9. Place of Death (enter full address, including postcode) 1 Section B – Details of the Estate 10. Did the deceased leave a Will? YES NO If NO, go to Q.14 11. Date of Will (being submitted with this form) 12.
    [Show full text]
  • SAS V. WPL: a Longstanding Transatlantic Dispute with an East Texas Flavor
    Free Speech, Due Process and Trial by Jury SAS v. WPL: A Longstanding Transatlantic Dispute with an East Texas Flavor NOVEMBER 25, 2020 | BY NATALIE POSGATE SAS Institute and World Programming Limited • The case involved claims of infringement of have sparred against each other in courtrooms “non-literal” elements of a software work, a on both sides of the Atlantic for 11 years. less-frequented claim in intellectual property law that is as nuanced as it is hard to prove; The storied litigation between the two software and programming competitors essentially tells the same tale each time: SAS accuses World • Just as the case was heading to a jury trial Programming of copyright infringement. SAS in September, the complexity of the issues doesn’t prevail. SAS sues WPL somewhere prompted Judge Gilstrap to delay the trial and else but includes additional allegations. WPL set a special hearing to determine the extent counterclaims. And the case has also caused to which the non-literal elements of SAS’ a trans-Atlantic tiff between judges in the U.S. software were copyrightable. “A hearing like and the United Kingdom. that in itself is a rare event, due to the unusual allegations here, but Judge Gilstrap embraced This plot has played out on the home turfs of the need to dig in and make sure the scope of both companies with mixed results. The High SAS’ IP rights were properly framed to a jury,” Court of Justice in London – previously known Caldwell said. as “Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice” – ruled against SAS.
    [Show full text]
  • Supporting the Introduction of the Single Family Court – Changes to the Family Legal Aid Remuneration Schemes
    Supporting the introduction of the single Family Court – Changes to the family legal aid remuneration schemes Response to consultation Published: 29 January 2014 Supporting the introduction of the single Family Court – Changes to the family legal aid remuneration schemes Response to consultation carried out by the Ministry of Justice. This information is also available at https://consult.justice.gov.uk/ Supporting the introduction of the single Family Court Summary of responses Contents Chapter 1: Executive summary 3 Chapter 2: Response to consultation 5 Chapter 3: Equality Statement 7 Annex A: Response to Consultation 9 Annex B: Revised Family Legal Aid Scheme Framework 15 Annex C: Other issues/suggestions made in response to the consultation 21 Annex D: Glossary 23 1 Supporting the introduction of the single Family Court Summary of responses 2 Supporting the introduction of the single Family Court Summary of responses Chapter 1: Executive summary Introduction & Case for reform 1.1 Currently, the family legal aid payment schemes use tier of court as one of the proxies for case complexity, with remuneration for legal aid services made on the basis of the tier of court in which proceedings are heard or disposed, with higher rates being paid in the higher levels of court. In 2014, County Courts and Magistrates’ Courts will cease to hear family proceedings. Instead, the new, single Family Court (FC) will become the national court for most family proceedings in England and Wales. Judges capable of sitting in the new FC include lay Justices, District Judges, Circuit Judges and High Court Judges. A full list is contained in s31C of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (inserted by Schedule 10 to the Crime and Courts Act 2013).
    [Show full text]