Court IT Failure Inevitable

It would seem the MoJ knew all along that a court IT failure was inevitable. This from the Guardian yesterday:-  

Justice ministry knew court IT systems were ‘obsolete’, papers reveal

The Ministry of Justice knew its court computer systems were “obsolete” and “out of support” long before the network went into meltdown last week, internal documents have revealed. An MoJ digital and technology review warned last year that judges in employment tribunals were threatening to stop hearing cases because of the unreliability of communications and 30,000 users were on systems that needed “immediate remediation”.

The detailed assessment seen by the Guardian blames “historical under-investment in ageing IT systems” and warns that it is reaching “unacceptable levels” of risk which could result in large-scale data breaches. Courts across England and Wales have been disrupted over the past two weeks because of successive IT failures which began when the criminal justice secure email system went down, depriving 75,000 lawyers and staff of communications.

The MoJ’s main computer network linking lawyers, judges, probation workers and court staff also malfunctioned. Cases were delayed, access to the courts’ digital case system was denied and jurors could not be enrolled. The justice minister Lucy Frazer was forced to answer emergency questions in the Commons last Wednesday during which she said there had not been a cyber-attack and also denied the problems were the result of financial cuts.

The internal review, however, makes it clear that long-term underfunding is at the heart of computer weaknesses in the MoJ. The department, which has to pay for courts, prisons and probation, has suffered larger cuts than any other in Whitehall since 2010. Its current funding level is almost 40% lower than it was in 2010.

The MoJ document, entitled Digital & Technology, says: “Historical under-investment in ageing IT systems has built our technical debt to unacceptable levels and we are carrying significant risk that will result in a large-scale data breach if the vulnerabilities are exploited.” It adds: “We have a Technology 2022 strategy, but it is not funded to help us address the long-term issues with current systems and allow us to make best use of new technologies to improve service delivery.”

In one case study it refers to a database used by 16 employment tribunal administrative offices in which the “scale of outage” accounted for 33% of incidents over the previous six months. Users were unable to access systems for a “significant number of hours”. The report cites problems such as “risk of database corrupted leading to data loss; unable to restore service in a timely manner”, and adds: “Judges say they will put tribunal activity on hold because of the poor running of the application.”

Addressing what are said to be “secondary risks”, the document notes: “Failure to reduce and prevent technical debt leading to a continued reliance on obsolete and out-of-support systems that may lead to operational failure and cyber-breach.” The document also contains a series of colour-coded levels relating to “criticality”, ranging from the worst, black, to the least dangerous, green. Among those in the black category were 30,000 users whose systems required “immediate remediation”.

The MoJ said the document was a routine risk assessment of its computer systems. The case study referred to in the document is understood to relate to a different system to the one that broke down last week. A spokesperson said: “Like any responsible organisation, we carry out regular assessments of risks to ensure that we can identify and manage them. It would be entirely wrong to suggest that last week’s IT issues were caused by us ignoring a risk assessment. We have always been clear that there are a number of outdated IT systems that need replacing which is why we continuously review our IT infrastructure and invest accordingly.”

Commenting on last week’s courtroom IT chaos, Chris Henley QC, the chair of the Criminal Bar Association, wrote in a message to members: “Whatever the reasons, and whatever the fix, has anything been more emblematic of the deep and worsening crisis in the criminal justice system than the collapse of IT systems in courts across the country last week? Trials adjourned, evidence inaccessible, secure emails vanishing, wifi down, Xhibit just a blank screen, prisons beyond communication, the stuff of satire, and a high-profile media story for several days … But it’s OK, it had nothing to do with a chronic lack of resources.”

--oo00oo--

Another Guardian article highlights the decimation of the court infrastructure and the effect it's having on the delivery of justice:- 

Half of magistrates courts in England and Wales closed since 2010

More than half of all magistrates courts in England and Wales have closed since 2010, forcing defendants, witnesses, police, lawyers and justices of the peace to travel sometimes more than 50 miles to access local justice. The full scale of the closures is revealed in data published by the Guardian and the House of Commons library. Since the coalition government came to power in 2010, 162 of the 323 magistrates courts in England and Wales have shut – a loss of 50.2% of the estate. The latest was Maidenhead magistrates court in the prime minister’s constituency. Most have been sold.

The controversial Ministry of Justice (MOJ) efficiency exercise is directly tied to the need to generate funds for a £1.2bn digital modernisation programme, which came under the spotlight following a meltdown of court computer systems this week. As large gaps open up in the courts network in Wales, East Anglia and the North of England, HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed it is considering whether to pay for taxis to ferry defendants and witnesses from the most remote parts of the country to hearings.

The distance model developed by HMCTS requires that 95% of the population should be able to travel to court from their homes by public transport leaving at 7.30am and arriving by 9.30am. It also specifies that 98% of the population should be able to reach court by 10.30am, which implies a three-hour journey to court and a further three hours back – a total of six hours travelling on a court attendance day.

Concern about the shutdowns is rising up the political agenda. The Commons’ justice select committee has launched an inquiry into HMCTS’s reforms. Among questions it is addressing are the impact of closures, reductions in staffing and how far online systems and video hearings can be “a sufficient substitute for access to court and tribunal buildings”.

Including crown courts, county courts and tribunals, since 2010 more than 250 hearing centres have ceased operating. So far £223m has been raised by sales. Treasury funding for the courts digital programme stipulates that a third must be raised by selling courthouses. HMCTS and the MoJ justify the closures on the grounds that crime rates have fallen and large numbers of courthouses are operating at less than 40% capacity. The agency is developing justice websites and remote video screens, which, it is argued, will mean fewer journeys to court.

Critics fear savings will only be achieved by displacing costs on to other agencies. The MoJ has declined to give a commitment about halting closures: six more magistrates courts are scheduled to shut this year. A study by Dr Olumide Adisa of the University of Suffolk found that local court closures have led to an increase in the number failing to attend hearings. The MoJ disputes such figures, saying the rate of defendant non-appearances did not change at the time most closures were enforced, although it concedes figures rose last year.

Sue James, a solicitor at Hammersmith law centre in west London, suspects a similar problem is emerging among claimants fighting repossession orders, leading to more evictions. Housing work in London has been transferred to Clerkenwell county court. She believes “people are not turning up” at more distant and unfamiliar courts.

A row erupted last year over a case raised by a Telford solicitor, John McMillan, a defendant from Shropshire who had to attend a remand hearing in Kidderminster and make a 53-mile journey back home via Birmingham. McMillan says the man missed the last bus in Shrewsbury and ending up walking home in the dark long after midnight. The MoJ does not accept the details, maintaining that the man could have left Kidderminster earlier.

The justice minister, Lucy Frazer, said: “The closure of any court is not taken lightly – it only happens following full public consultation and when communities have reasonable access to alternative courts. We are reinvesting every penny raised from selling these underused buildings into modernising the justice system to provide swifter and easier access to justice for all.” The MoJ is consulting on guidelines for future closures.

John Bache JP, the national chair of the Magistrates Association, said: “Justice should, wherever possible, be administered locally and, with half of all magistrates courts having closed since 2010, many courts are already worryingly remote from the communities that they serve. A more dispersed court estate will affect the retention and recruitment of magistrates, as some will have to step down if their local court closes and people will be less likely to apply in the first place if the nearest court is not in their immediate area. Longer travel distances for magistrates will also increase the cost of meeting their travel expenses.”

Penelope Gibbs, the director of Transform Justice and a former magistrate who monitors the service, said: “Courts are being closed without really thinking through the consequences. Vulnerable defendants and witnesses cannot be expected to travel several hours to attend court and to spend significant sums on doing so. Already many do not turn up for their own court hearing.”

Christina Blacklaws, the president of the Law Society, which represents solicitors, said: “People across England and Wales are losing access to their local courts and having to travel sometimes for several hours on public transport to alternative sites – assuming that such public transport even exists. In addition, police and prison delivery services may suffer increased costs, which will ultimately fall on the taxpayer. There is some evidence of defendants increasingly failing to turn up for criminal hearings, resulting in court time being wasted and witnesses being inconvenienced, as well as cost to the public purse.”

Examples of long journeys to court

Residents of Staylittle in Wales have a 1 hour and 50 minute car journey (74 miles) to Caernarfon criminal justice centre, the designated “receiving site” for Dolgellau magistrates court, which closed in 2017-18.

People living in Kielder in Northumberland were previously served by Tynedale magistrates court in Hexham, 34 miles away. They now have to travel 52 miles to Newcastle upon Tyne magistrates court, which according to Google takes 2 hours and 53 minutes by public transport. Services do not run daily.

In the past, those living in Mildenhall in East Anglia could reach Thetford magistrates court within 18 minutes by car or 40 minutes by bus at certain times of the day. But since it closed in 2013-14 the designated receiving court is Norwich magistrate’s court, a 55-minute drive or an extra hour by public transport, although it can take longer depending on the time of day.