DOCSLIB.ORG

Engaging Communities in Criminal Justice Cm 7583

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Engaging Communities in Criminal Justice Cm 7583 Engaging Communities in Criminal Justice Engaging Communities in Criminal Justice Presented to Parliament by The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice The Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Attorney General by Command of Her Majesty April 2009 Cm 7583 £26.50 © Crown Copyright 2009 The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and other departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing 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. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. For any other use of this material please write to Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU or email: [email protected] ISBN 978-0-10-175832-1 CONTENTS FOREWORD 5 Foreword by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, 5 the Home Secretary and the Attorney General EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 CHAPTER 1 THE PROSECUTION AND THE COURTS: RESPONDING TO COMMUNITY CONCERNS ABOUT CRIME 11 Section 1A Community Prosecutors: enhancing the role of the 16 Crown Prosecution Service Section 1B Community Impact Statements: community concerns taking centre-stage 21 Section 1C Increased problem-solving in the courtroom 26 Section 1D Judicial continuity and case review 30 Section 1E Intensive solutions to the most persistent problems 34 Section 1F Selection and deployment: the right people doing the right jobs in 41 the right places Section 1G Magistrates’ courts: justice for the community, in the community 48 CHAPTER 2 MAKING AMENDS: PAYBACK, REPARATION, RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AND COMPENSATION 52 Section 2A Giving local people more of a say in Community Payback and Asset 56 Recovery schemes Section 2B More visible and more immediate Community Payback for offenders 61 Section 2C Restorative Justice and compensation: repairing harm, restoring 65 communities, compensating victims of crime CHAPTER 3 KEEPING COMMUNITIES INFORMED, GETTING PEOPLE INVOLVED 71 Section 3A Better information, better presentation 76 Section 3B Making individual court case outcomes publicly available 81 Section 3C Local Criminal Justice Boards: joining up communications and 85 engagement activity Section 3D Promoting volunteering in criminal justice services 89 CHAPTER 4 CONSULTATION QUESTIONS 94 A summary of the consultation questions 94 CHAPTER 5 RESPONDING TO THIS GREEN PAPER 107 GLOSSARY 110 REFERENCES 113 GREEN PAPER ENGAGING COMMUNITIES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE FOREWORD FOREWORD by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the Home Secretary and the Attorney General The Criminal Justice System (CJS) belongs to We have made significant improvements. Crime the people it serves. The public need to believe is down by more than a third since 1997, the that to be the case. If people understand most substantial and sustained drop in crime and trust the system, and indeed see it as a achieved by any Government since the Second public service more than a system, they will World War. Reoffending is down by nearly a feel increasingly free to get on with their lives quarter. The chance of becoming a victim of without fear of crime, secure in the knowledge crime is the lowest in the last 25 years, and that there are consequences for those who we have trebled our investment in improved do not play by the rules. services and support for victims. Yet significant challenges remain. Criminal justice services should be open, transparent and accountable to those they There are still significant problems with some serve. They should help the public understand types of crime, including knife crime, problems how they are performing. They should do with gangs, and binge drinking. We are taking this collectively and in ways which build the targeted action to address each of these, as confidence of all sections of the community well as to ensure that crime does not rise as it that the system is fair, effective and, above all, has done in previous downturns in the 1980s working for them. They must also instil trust and and 1990s. confidence in those we rely on to deliver them But there are also challenges with the system – our staff and our local delivery partners. as a whole. The Cabinet Office Review Engaging Communities in Fighting Crime1 (the 1. www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/crime.aspx GREEN PAPER ENGAGING COMMUNITIES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE 5 FOREWORD FOREWORD Casey Review) found that, for all the progress The police service has already set the tone. we have made, the system can still feel too Last year’s Policing Green Paper From the remote from people’s everyday lives and the neighbourhood to the national: policing our justice it delivers not visible enough. The author, communities together3 sets out a radical agenda Louise Casey, said: “Too often the public don’t of police reform that gives the police across believe that their voice is heard, don’t believe England and Wales more freedom to do their wrongdoers face adequate consequences for job unhindered by red tape, the public a greater the crimes they commit, don’t believe they are say, and more action on crime in their streets told enough about what happens in the system and neighbourhoods. This agenda has been and, perhaps because of this, they don’t believe shaped by Sir Ronnie Flanagan’s review of that crime has fallen when they are told so.” policing4 and the Casey Review, and has already resulted in the new Policing Pledge – minimum We are determined to change this. We must standards for what people can expect from open up the justice system to the public so that their local police team, together with a clear local communities have the confidence to play commitment to deliver on local priorities – in their part. If they trust the system to deliver return for the centre stripping away all top- on its promises, they will be more willing to down targets except one: for forces to improve report crime; to come forward to give evidence public confidence that crime and local problems as witnesses; to participate as volunteers and are being tackled. jurors or to consider a career in the CJS. Neighbourhood Policing (NHP) Teams provide Our criminal justice Public Service Agreement the cornerstone of contact with local people; target Justice for All2 sets out our commitment but they cannot, and should not, be solely to deliver a more effective, transparent and responsible for improving the full range of responsive CJS for victims and the public. An criminal justice services and responding to all integral part of this target is to raise public the concerns of communities. Other agencies confidence in the fairness and effectiveness must also rise to the challenge and work with of the CJS. the police to deliver the world-class criminal Criminal justice services should give local justice services that the public demand and people more opportunities to have a say deserve. on action to tackle local concerns – to have We accepted the overwhelming majority of their views heard, to be told what has been the findings of the Casey Review. We have and is being done to deal with the problems already made major changes to the system and to become involved if they choose to do in response – such as helping the public so. Working together in strong and seamless have confidence in community sentences by partnerships with shared goals, criminal justice ensuring that where offenders are ordered services can better take on and deal with local to carry out reparative work as part of their concerns and feed back jointly to communities sentence – now called ‘Community Payback’ what action has been taken. 2. www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pbr_csr07_psa24.pdf 3. http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police-reform/Policing_GP/ 4. http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police-reform/Review_of_policing_final_report/ 6 GREEN PAPER ENGAGING COMMUNITIES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE FOREWORD – this is intensive and clearly visible, including Building on the strong start that has been made high-visibility uniforms. Louise Casey has been in the police service, the proposals aim to open appointed Neighbourhood Crime and Justice up the whole justice system to communities. Adviser. In that role she is driving forward the Justice is being done. Through these proposals Justice Seen, Justice Done programme to raise we will ensure that it will also more often be public awareness of what services are available seen to be done and local people will have from the police and other justice agencies and more of a voice, and more opportunity to get to help demonstrate to the public that there involved and play their part. are consequences for those who break the law. We are grateful for the views and contributions This Green Paper and consultation exercise we have received from police and other are the next stage in the journey towards criminal justice professionals, members of our vision for a criminal justice service that is the senior judiciary and magistracy, local effective, delivers justice for all, has the interests government representatives, third sector of victims and witnesses at its heart and which and victims’ organisations and members of inspires the trust and confidence of the people the public – through the Casey Review and it serves. Significant reforms have already been elsewhere – as the proposals in this Green delivered but there is more to be done. This Paper have been developed. document sets out our proposals for further Our vision of a criminal justice service in which improvements, and on these we seek the views all partners are focused on local communities of the public and the very many dedicated and work together to tackle crime, deliver professionals and volunteers who work in and justice and provide high-quality services that with criminal justice organisations.
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]
  • 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.
    [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]