Thursday, 10 May 2018

MoJ in the Dock

We all know the MoJ has an unenviable track record in wasting public money on vast computer projects that don't deliver and according to this in the Guardian, history is repeating itself:-   

Delays and spiralling costs hamper MoJ's digital courts project

Audit office says full ambition of programme will ‘prove to be undeliverable in time available’

A £1bn modernisation programme of the UK’s justice system is facing a “daunting challenge” after falling behind schedule and overrunning costs, according to Whitehall’s spending watchdog. The National Audit Office has found that the changes being rolled out by HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS), an agency of the Ministry of Justice, are behind schedule and facing funding gaps. Costs have already risen by £200m to £1.2bn, auditors found.

A report, released on Wednesday, comes as the MoJ needs to reduce its annual spending by £500m from 2015-16 levels by 2019-20 to meet the commitments in the 2015 spending review. The justice secretary, David Gauke, recently appointed Tim Parker, a former boss of Kwik-Fit and the AA, as chair of its board. Auditors believe the modernisation plans are “extremely challenging” and there is a significant risk that HMCTS will not be able to achieve all it wants within the time available.

Meg Hillier, the chair of the public accounts committee, said: “The Ministry of Justice is seeking to modernise our justice system but needs to be clear about which of the promised benefits it will actually be able to deliver.”

In 2016, HMCTS set up a portfolio of change programmes to introduce new technology and working practices to modernise and upgrade the justice system. The aim, by 2023, was to employ 5,000 fewer staff, reduce the number of cases held in physical courtrooms by 2.4m a year and reduce annual spending by £265m.

The NAO’s assessment of the progress of the project found the body faces a “daunting challenge” in delivering the scale of technological and cultural change necessary. The report said: “Given the extent of changes planned, there is a very significant risk that, despite the best efforts of HMCTS and other parties, the full ambition of the change portfolio will prove to be undeliverable in the time available.”

The modernisation programme will see an increase in the use of “virtual hearings” in criminal cases, with judges and magistrates dealing with defendants from a police station or prison using a video link. Accused individuals will be able to enter pleas online, removing the need for pre-trial hearings, while vulnerable witnesses will be allowed to give pre-recorded evidence rather than appear in court.

In lower-level cases, such as TV licence evasion, the reforms aim to allow the entire process to be completed on the internet. Technology will also be at the forefront of efforts to reduce the number of cases requiring a physical hearing in the civil and family courts and tribunals. The NAO said delivering the reforms successfully remains “extremely challenging”.

Officials estimate there will be a funding shortfall of £61m in future years, assuming that the Treasury agrees that all previous years’ under-spends can be carried forward. Without this agreement, the gap could be £177m. The MoJ completed the first stage of the reforms in September 2017, but has made less progress overall than it had expected to at this stage, according to auditors.

Penelope Gibbs, director of the organisation Transform Justice, said: “Its hard not to see the government’s digital court reform programme as designed more in hope than expectation. No one denies the courts need to be more efficient but this programme seems over-ambitious and based on flawed assumptions.”

Susan Acland-Hood, chief executive of HMCTS, welcomed the report as “helpful and constructive”.

“We are confident that the current six-year programme is on track to deliver the benefits promised on completion and, in doing so, help create a better, more straightforward, accessible and efficient justice system for all who use and need it,” she said.


Of course the MoJ has a track record of being routinely less than open and honest, but they've been caught out according to this on the Buzzfeed website:- 

This Leaked Report Reveals The Stark Warnings From Judges About Defendants With No Lawyer

“Some of them just sit there like a rabbit in the headlights and haven’t got a clue what’s going on," one judge said in a report leaked to BuzzFeed News.

The Ministry of Justice concealed the existence of a 36-page internal report that contained explosive testimony from judges and prosecutors about the impact on the justice system of the rising number of people defending criminal charges without a lawyer, BuzzFeed News can reveal.

Last week BuzzFeed News reported on the release under Freedom of Information laws of a six page summary of research conducted in 2015 into the issue of people facing criminal charges in court with no lawyer.

The study was commissioned by the government to review the impact of cuts to legal aid made in the 2012 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) and was based on in-depth interviews with 15 crown court judges and six prosecutors.

The MoJ repeatedly insisted, including in two on-the-record statements, that the six pages were the report in its entirety, despite it being labelled a summary and containing no direct testimony or data. After BuzzFeed News expressed scepticism, an MoJ press officer said that any edits from the original draft were minor corrections to spelling or grammar. They also insisted that there was no transcript of the judges’ testimony.

But now the original report has been leaked in full to BuzzFeed News. Dated February 2016 and titled “Unrepresented Defendants: Perceived effects on the Crown Court in England and Wales and indicative volumes in magistrates’ courts" it is marked “Internal Ministry of Justice Report Do not quote publicly”.

It includes the first research of its kind into the number of people facing criminal charges without a lawyer in magistrates court, as well as a series direct quotes from the judges expressing their serious concerns about the impact on defendants, victims and the court process.

“Some of them just sit there like a rabbit in the headlights and haven’t got a clue what’s going on,” one judge is quoted as saying.

The revelations in the full report that the MoJ omitted from the summary it released include:
  • The gulf between MoJ predictions on the minimal impact of legal aid changes on criminal cases and the reality experienced by judges.
  • That more than half of the judges interviewed were concerned about unrepresented defendants understanding the concept of the difference an early guilty plea made in sentencing.
  • Explicit warnings backed up by data that not having a lawyer may create more hearings, a situation that could end up costing the court system more.
  • Judges said preparation for cases was “more extensive or difficult” where the defendant had no lawyer.
  • Data from five magistrates courts across England and Wales in 2015 suggesting that 13% of people have no lawyer when facing criminal charges there.
  • That some of those interviewed said no support at all was offered to unrepresented defendants.
  • While the summary made just three vague policy recommendations on the back of what it described as a “small study”, the original report has seven specific recommendations, including looking at options for providing legal assistance in crown court.
  • A judge saying the impact of witnesses being interrogated by a defendant is “almost like committing the offence all over again.”
  • Correspondence between the Senior Presiding Judge (SPJ) and MoJ officials “where the SPJ requested the MoJ conduct further work on the issue, namely to provide more robust data on the number of unrepresented defendants in the Crown Court.”
The government is conducting a review on the impact of legal aid cuts but it is largely focused on civil law. This proves the MoJ has been sitting on research that showed there were already serious concerns in the judiciary three years ago about the availability of criminal legal aid and the rise of people defending criminal charges without a lawyer.

BuzzFeed News applied under Freedom of Information laws for the release of the research in April last year. It was turned down by the MoJ, but following an appeal, the Information Commissioner ruled that it should be released.

When the MoJ finally released the summary document last week, it vehemently denied any more substantial version of the report existed. In one email a press officer wrote: “Further to our conversation earlier where you accused me of lying to you about the report, I want to make it abundantly clear that the report given to you was the only report produced on the back of this research. We will be very disappointed if you allude to us being in any way dishonest in your article.”

In its on-the-record statement the MoJ insisted: “The report sent was the one requested and it is in its entirety. There are no summaries nor are there any transcripts in the review.”

A further email from the press office after publication said: “upon reading the article published after the conversation we had on Monday about the contents of the report, I would appreciate if you could add the below statement below the passage which strongly suggests that the full research was not published. An MoJ spokesperson said: 'We have released the full and final report as requested and will of course consider any further requests for information related to this work.'"

BuzzFeed News approached the MoJ at 2pm on Tuesday for its response to the full leaked document. We asked why it had failed to disclose its existence last week and why it had repeatedly insisted that the summary was the only report. By 6pm, the department still had not provided a response and a spokesperson said it would be unable to offer one until Wednesday.

Shadow Justice Secretary Richard Burgon told BuzzFeed News: “When people’s liberty is at stake, no one should be left without proper legal representation. This risks not only miscarriages of justice but, as the revelations uncovered by Buzzfeed shows, it can cause distress for victims and witnesses as well as costing the taxpayer more as cases drag on.

"The government’s failure to publish this research, delays in responding to FOI requests, and denials that the full research even exists suggests that it is trying to sweep these problems under the carpet rather than fix them. That approach must end."

Despite the MoJ insisting no quotes or transcripts from the judges existed, some of the most damning material in the 2016 report is quotes from judges clearly exasperated with the situation. Describing the impact of unrepresented defendants not understanding court processes, one judge said: “It’s like saying if you felt unwell would you want to go and ask someone with no medical qualification how to cure yourself”.

Another, explaining the defence’s level of participation in hearings where they have no lawyer, said: “Some of them just sit there looking like a rabbit in the headlights and they haven’t got a clue what’s going on and you really have to check that they are following and are in a position to make any relevant comments they need to. Others will be jumping up every five seconds, even when it’s not their turn to talk”.

Commenting on the impact on witnesses when a defendant is the person to cross-examine them, one judge said: “He decides he’s going to represent himself, and then he’s asking questions of these people, it’s almost like committing the offence all over again.”

The unpublished research explicitly says that not having a lawyer may create more hearings, a situation that could end up costing the court system more. Quoting 2014 data, it points out that while 17% of defendants with no lawyer had two or fewer hearings, compared to 30% of those represented in court. In analysis absent from the original summary released to BuzzFeed News, it says: “This suggests that legal representation may affect the number of hearings.”

It goes on to say: “Prior to this paper there was no qualitative evidence to give any narrative around these statistics. There was also no quantitative data about the number of unrepresented defendants in the magistrates’ courts.”

The report gives vivid detail on how unrepresented defendants can bring court delays, with one judge giving an example of a case “where an unrepresented defendant asked for 50,000 pages of documents to be provided and for Lord Chief Justice to give evidence. These problems appeared to stem in part from unrepresented defendants not being in a position to engage with CPS properly due to their lack of legal training and their distrust of the CPS stopped the unrepresented defendants releasing documents.”

The research also details case delays caused by pursuing a peculiar defence that a lawyer would be unlikely to try. “One interviewee mentioned a spate of cannabis cases with unrepresented defendants whereby the defendants did not accept the illegality of their actions,” the research notes. “A different interviewee discussed a three week trial in which the unrepresented defendant based their defence on the ‘law of the sea’ in a drug dealing case.”

While the summary said judges “mentioned problems in discussing the concept of pleas and discounts,” it omitted to say that more than half of the judges interviewed were concerned. The fact that some of the CPS interviewees also thought it was harder to get a guilty plea from someone unrepresented was also edited out. The original report says “they perceived unrepresented defendants to be unable to assess the weight of evidence against them and therefore know whether a case is strong”.

One judge said: “To me, saying that to a defendant in person is almost like saying, “you’ve got to plead guilty, mate”.

The impact of those with mental health issues going unrepresented was also detailed. “An example was given of one defendant was assessed by a psychiatrist as fit to stand trial but displayed paranoid behaviour and continually turned up at court with a suitcase full of nappies. The court therefore had an additional task to manage this behaviour as part of the hearing.”

Many of the sentences in the summary released by the MoJ are identical to ones that appear in this report. However, the majority of the report is missing from the summary that was released. The full report suggests that opportunities to adjust policies have been missed. While it contained seven policy recommendations, the summary that was released by the MoJ last week included just three, all of them vaguely worded.

The recommendations that were omitted from the summary were: that work should be done to create a central bank of data on representation in the magistrates’ courts; explore whether having a lawyer has an impact on outcomes in magistrates’ courts; Create guidance for judges and CPS staff on how to handle unrepresented cases; create practical guides for unrepresented defendants and a fully costed assessment of how legal advice could be provided in crown court, along the lines of the duty solicitor scheme in magistrates’ court.

On the opening page, it says: “The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) estimated that between 200-300 Crown Court defendants per year would be excluded from criminal legal aid funding due to this change. It was anticipated that this would lead to more people paying their own court costs and that this increase would represent a relatively small proportion of cases in the Crown Court. However, feedback from judicial stakeholders has suggested that since this legal aid change, they believe unrepresented defendant numbers have increased and this is disproportionately reducing the efficiency of the courts.”

It also details correspondence between the Senior Presiding Judge (SPJ) and MoJ officials “where the SPJ requested the MoJ conduct further work on the issue, namely to provide more robust data on the number of unrepresented defendants in the Crown Court.”

The unpublished paper says it has two objectives: to understand the perceived effects of unrepresented defendants in the Crown Court and to explore the scale of unrepresented defendants in a small selection of magistrates’ courts. Yet the summary released under FOI did not include anything on the second aspect of the research.

In the buried report, MoJ analysts collected data in five magistrates courts across England and Wales for a period of four weeks from November 2015, recording the numbers of unrepresented defendants. Of the cases they surveyed, 13% of defendants had no lawyer at all. Missing data from two courts meant that only three courts had baseline data so the percentages are based on a sample of 1,031 cases.

While data in the number of unrepresented people in Crown Court is gathered and published by the MoJ, almost no data exists on the issue in magistrates courts. It was for this reason that BuzzFeed News commissioned an exclusive survey of magistrates last year. It found that magistrates reported that 30% of all criminal defendants they saw at their last session had no lawyer, suggesting the problem has only worsened since this research was carried out.

Better Case Management, a scheme introduced in 2016 to make speedier justice, was not yet rolled out when the draft was written. But judges said that delays caused by unrepresented defendants would have a serious impact on this, with one saying “Having unrepresented defendants drives a coach and horses through Better Case Management.”

UPDATE May 8, 2018, at 9:21 pm.
After publication a spokesperson for the MoJ said: “The FOI requested the final report and this was provided. Over 99% of applications for Crown Court legal aid are granted, and this hasn’t changed following the reforms. We will this year review all the changes made to legal aid in 2012 under LASPO – including criminal legal aid.”


  1. There comes a point presumably, when this government will have eroded the law of the land to such an extent that the government is no longer legitimate.

    1. And the lawyers keep their foot on the pedal.


    3. Criminal barristers are to step up their protest against fee reforms by refusing to hand over cases when diaries clash after a motion to reverse the reforms was defeated in the House of Commons last night.

      The Criminal Bar Association (CBA), as the Gazette predicted last week, is to advise members today to adopt a ‘no returns’ policy from Friday 25 May. It would start to take effect in courts after the late May bank holiday. The last such protest was in 2015.

      More than 100 chambers have refused to take on new cases since 1 April in protest against changes to the Advocates Graduated Fee Scheme (AGFS), under which legal aid payments are calculated.

      Angela Rafferty QC, chair of the CBA, said: 'We now consider it is necessary to escalate this action in order to show that we really have reached breaking point as we said at last night’s event and have been saying for many years. We still seek a resolution and will actively take part in all efforts to bring this situation to an end. However, there must be a recognition that investment is required in the AGFS and the criminal justice system.’

      Last night’s motion, which called for a revocation of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, was defeated by 300 votes to 253.

      The revised fee scheme was passed under a negative procedure statutory instrument (SI) on 23 February. Such instruments become law without debate unless they are challenged. Last month, the government backtracked and allowed for a debate on the AGFS reforms after being criticised for failing to allocate time for a debate despite the Labour Party’s opposition to the SI.

      Shadow justice secretary Richard Burgon told parliament last night: ‘This motion is about the threats posed to our justice system and specifically to criminal defence by the government’s changes. We have a responsibility to contribute to resolving this situation by encouraging negotiation and facilitating a solution before there is further escalation.’

      Responding, parliamentary under-secretary of state for justice Lucy Frazer QC said the scheme was devised in ‘close co-operation with the bar leadership’, does not bring in a cut and is more advantageous to the bar than the one it replaces, particularly for junior practitioners. She added that the government has given a clear commitment to review the reform in 18 to 24 months.

  2. With the persistence of failures by the MoJ and the continuing spiraling costs of projects that are constantly failing to meet their deadline, it's difficult to see how they can justify the staggering amounts they spend on consultancy fees and advice.
    I'm minded to suggest that using Google to look for ways of reforming the justice systesm would be far cheaper, and may even bring better results.

    ' Getafix

    1. *other search engines - some of whom pay their taxes - are available*

      MoJ in the dock, but no lawyers available!

  3. Of course, the MoJ will never be in the dock for brazenly flouting freedom of information by lying through their teeth; nor Amber for 'inadvertently misleading'; nor Jack Straw and MI6 for complicity in rendition and torture. No, good old British values will never be tested in a court.

    1. It's the great British values and Etonian history lessons about the empire that's pushing society in the direction its going.
      Brexit, privatisation, Trump as the leader of the free world. It's just rotten everywhere.
      Must be a better way?


  4. Working Links go bust! You heard it here first.

    1. I think a little more information is required!

    2. I look every day at all the big outsourcer stocks and shares. Interserve could go very quickly, but Working Links have too many government contracts, and involved with too many governments around the world to go belly up as an ongoing concern. Maybe Working Links Justice Services (if it exists) has folded, or they've handed the contract back, but I doubt the company itself has gone under.
      I'd like to be wrong.


    3. Interserve shares have plummeted 8p to 77p. Been hovering at mid 80p for weeks so i'm hoping this is the beginning of the end.

    4. Aurelius, presumably from Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Roman family name which was derived from Latin aureus "golden, gilded"} who was a Stoic & known to have ruled Rome with authority, humanity, and competence.

      Definitions of stoicism include:

      1. the endurance of pain or hardship without the display of feelings and without complaint.
      2. an ancient Greek school of philosophy founded at Athens by Zeno of Citium. The school taught that virtue, the highest good, is based on knowledge; the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason (also identified with Fate and Providence) that governs nature,and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.

      The Emperor would be be mortified to know his name is being applied to an asset-stripping organisation who's only focus is upon amassing fortunes for themselves and inflicting pain upon others.

  5. #The_Constitution_Committee of @UKHouseofLords spent 90minutes questioning #Lord_Chancellor #David_Gauke on his job covered issues including #Judge's morale & income, #prison & #parole particularly #Worboys and resignation of @nicklhardwick2 etc, & Finished within alloted time

    Continuing ... it was #QI - you can listen here

    however I did not hear #The_Constitution_Committee of @UKHouseofLords say the word #probation - so I conclude all is #tickety_boo or did I misunderstand - what do YOU think, dear readers???

    You can read up on #The_Constitution_Committee of The @UKHouseofLords here

  6. Non-custodial deaths: missing, ignored or unimportant? Read our latest comment piece by @jakephillips Loraine Gelsthorpe & @NickyPadfield

  7. RRP counting every penny .... Carpetbagging bean counters in overdrive.
    Who will be the first to fold and hand them there keys back to the Sheriffs ??

    1. Yes, this is what is happening at Working Links. No profit in crime! No doubt they will grab our laptops before they do a runner or flog them back to MOJ at inflated price so we can carry on working.