The Conservatives are bringing a tech revolution to public services
You may not instantly associate cloistered Inns of Court, judicial robes or the dock of a trial with the white heat of technological innovation. But this Government is using technology to pioneer reform to bring our courts into the 21st century – and deliver wider improvements in public services across the board.
The Conservatives will always be careful custodians of the public finances – and will never give in to Labour’s reckless demands for more spending that would push up taxes, or inflate debt for the next generation. But we’re restless social reformers too.
Our justice reforms are based on three principles. We want to protect the most vulnerable, and deliver better services for every citizen who comes into contact with the court system. We need a step-change in the use of technology to achieve this. And, by modernising the way court services are provided, we can also deliver far better value for taxpayers’ money. The first principle of any Conservative reform is to protect the most vulnerable.
The extension of video links for virtual hearings can shield vulnerable witnesses from the fear and anguish of coming face to face with a violent assailant – while ensuring justice is properly done. That way more victims will have the confidence to come forward, and more dangerous offenders will be brought to justice.
In family cases, we want to ban family members with a record of violence or sexual abuse from cross-examining vulnerable partners or children – and allow the judge to direct a publicly-funded legal representative to ask the appropriate questions. Our courtrooms must be a sanctuary from bullying and intimidation.
More broadly, we want to improve the average citizen’s experience of the justice system through more flexible procedures, streamlined case-management and digital technology. That will cut paperwork, reducing the number of physical hearings that need to be heard in court, and allow more disputes to be settled online. This will free up our judges to focus on the most complex cases, and reduce the disruption and costs that attending court inflicts on businesses and working families leading busy lives.
These reforms hinge on better use of technology – which is already underway. From video links to digital case systems, we’re reducing the stacks of paperwork tied up with pink string, and minimising the scope for losing documents. Online services are being expanded, while further pilots will make sure we learn the right lessons as we bed in reform.
Some lawyers are concerned about what all this means for their working practises. As in other walks of life, technology is the friend of remote working, and can help those grappling with the challenge of balancing bread-winning and childcare. We’re determined to make the system more user-friendly for everyone.
We need reform, if we are going to make the justice system more sensitive and effective, but it will also deliver more bang for the taxpayers’ buck. Take low-value money claims. They will be able to be resolved entirely online. It may sound like a small step but it will allow tens of thousands of more minor disputes to be settled this way, giving citizens quicker and cleaner justice.
Some people may find this prospect daunting, so we’ll make a range of support available – including web-chat advice, telephone assistance and face-to-face support. As we transition, paper-based channels will remain available for those who need them. Overall, we will invest £1.1 billion in courts reform, which once delivered will save us £250 million every year.
Court reform comes just at the right time. It will be a terrific advert for post-Brexit Britain. We have the best justice system in the world, and we’re a global leader in dispute settlement. And, since we’ve got the best judges in the world – who are helping drive these reforms – it’s only right that we strengthen their opportunities for career progression and development, for example, by offering fixed-term leadership positions, and more flexible deployment across jurisdictions.
Beyond the court room, the smart deployment of technology is driving reform across our public services. Digital technology is helping improve the management of rail traffic, so trains run more frequently, safely and comfortably. We’re digitising the tax system, so it’s easier for firms and individuals to file their tax return. We’re modernising the process for applying for a passport, so 90 per cent of applications can be done online by 2020. And that’s just the start.
We won’t make reckless promises, like Jeremy Corbyn’s vow to write off all student debt that Labour never intended to honour. We don’t hark back to some 1970s socialist utopia, which was a nightmare for anyone that lived through it, or give into Labour’s luddite opposition to reform. We’re looking to the future. From court rooms to train carriages, this Conservative Government will harness the power of technology to drive innovation, and deliver better public services to improve the quality of life for people right across the country.
Dominic Raab is the MP for Esher & Walton, and justice minister
--oo00oo--
"These reforms hinge on better use of technology – which is already underway. From video links to digital case systems, we’re reducing the stacks of paperwork tied up with pink string, and minimising the scope for losing documents. Online services are being expanded, while further pilots will make sure we learn the right lessons as we bed in reform."The legal profession needs to wake up to what's really going on here. Let me repeat what I said a few days ago, there are secret MoJ plans to close every court in England and Wales and move everything online. Just to be clear, that means every Magistrates Court and every Crown Court - only the Old Bailey and Supreme Court would remain, largely for show trials and historic, ceremonial reasons.
All the tinkering around with video-conferencing, digitising the paperwork, extending court hours, eroding the role of magistrates, closing a few courts each year - these are all merely appetisers for the main course and a huge army of civil servants are beavering away on delivering the world's first complete justice system online! What could possibly go wrong?
"From court rooms to train carriages, this Conservative Government will harness the power of technology to drive innovation, and deliver better public services to improve the quality of life for people right across the country."
ReplyDeleteI'm truly looking forward to my trial being held on HS2 as we whizzzz out of London through the English suburbs heading for the fringes of civilisation where, having been found guilty, I'll be left to claim my foodbank parcel.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/11/uk_gov_cloud_favourite_amazon_comes_under_fire_for_tax_bill/
ReplyDeleteThe strange case of the judge and the PSR.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/15474977.Grieving_family_forced_to_endure_further_agony_after_judge__39_s_failure_to_order_report/
A FAMILY mourning a much-loved mother killed in crash caused by a careless driver has been forced to endure further agony after what an enraged judge described as an "unfathomable" penny-pinching measure.
DeleteChristine Watson's relatives must wait weeks to see justice served after a deputy district judge, sitting at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates Court refused to sanction a probation report on the background of a young man facing jail for a serious charge.
It was said in court the step was taken to save money - but it has ended up costing far more, with a delay in the case, extra lawyers' fees and tears among those involved.
Jeremy Cheung, of Moray Close, Darlington, had been facing sentence at Teesside Crown Court after earlier pleading guilty to a charge of causing death by careless driving.
Mother-of-two Christine Watson, of Hurworth, died after a head-on collision on the A167 Croft Road, near Darlington in November.
Cheung, 23, driving a White Mercedes C220 car crashed into a white Citroen Berlingo van, in which Mrs Watson was a passenger and her partner, David Graham, 65, suffered serious injuries, including a dislocated hip, a broken femur and broken ribs.
After her death, her daughter, Hayley Watson, said her mother had "touched so many people's lives" and "lived for her children".
In court, there was a man walking with the aid of a stick, who sat in the front row of the public gallery alongside Mrs Watson's daughter.
She had arrived with a victim personal statement and fortified herself to read it to court, but wept as the judge said he had no option but to adjourn the case.
He had previously appeared at the magistrates court to confess to the crime, but the judge there said a pre-sentence report was unnecessary.
It appears it was assumed the 23-year-old would face no option but be locked up, and the £250 cost of commissioning a report would be wasted, but the decision left one of the country's most senior judges fuming.
Judge Simon Bourne-Arton, QC, the Recorder of Middlesbrough, said his judicial counterpart had made an "unwise" decision, and ordered an investigation.
Judge Bourne-Arton then apologised to the families of the victim and the defendant, who both packed the public gallery in the hope of seeing the case close.
He said: "I am very, very sorry, but I hope you understand. I can see the impact this has had on everybody. I am deeply sorry about this.
"It's the result of someone making a very bad decision. I'll take steps to find out why. It's down to someone misguidedly considering costs are more important than justice.
"A decision was taken, unwisely in my judgement, by a district judge not to order a pre-sentence report. I fail to understand why that decision was made."
Cheung will return to court on September 4 to be sentenced. He faces a sentencing range from a "high level" community order to jail, but without a probation report, the judge was unable to decide, he said.
His barrister, Mark Styles, said Cheung and his family had arrived at court, expecting and hoping the case would be dealt with.
Judge Bourne-Arton added: "Even if an immediate custodial sentence is inevitable, the length of that sentence can be determined by a pre-sentence report. This is a young man with no previous convictions.
"Members of the family of the deceased will have come here expecting, quite reasonably, to have closure in this case. I would have expected to have fulfilled that wish.
"I hope you understand why it is important for justice to be done, and that I have all the information available on this young man, who is responsible for the tragedy.
"I have to consider the degree of culpability, the level of his fault, and as far as you are concerned, the consequences of that fault.
"I am not prepared to sentence a young man with no previous convictions without knowing more about him. I need a pre-sentence report so I do know more about him.
Delete"It may be that a sentence of immediate imprisonment is inevitable, but the length of that sentence can be determined by what I know about his background."
"There is a standard process which, to an extent, is understandable, in order to save costs, when the justices consider they do not have adequate powers, therefore, assume the sentence is inevitable.
"It's not inevitable. Even if an immediate custodial sentence is inevitable, the length of that sentence can be determined by a pre-sentence report."
It's enlightening to see just how very differently two different judges view the importance of PSRs, and as to how they should be used in order to inform sentencing.
DeleteBack when I was a court duty officer, a committal for sentence immediately triggered a PSR being prepared, whether the magistrate(s) had asked for one or not.
DeleteI think there was a period when it was thought unecessary and could be left to individual Judge's decision in each case. The Judges must have kicked off, being used to having the report at first crown court hearing. The Magistrates now make a point of ordering a PSR, although we do set off procedure automatically. The Judges may yet be the difficulty in the way of implementing these horrendous reforms. The Magistrates Court alone wastes hours arguing over what is most cost effective. It's so shabby and embarrassing. Look at Raab's attempts now to buy off Judges with financial sweeteners and offers. It's disgusting. And yes, look at all those beautiful buildings where Crown Courts sit. This bunch of crooks must be salivating to get their hands on them.
DeleteIt's the USA, but it might be of interest to probation staff that see the relationship between officer and client as the fundamental driver in reducing reoffending.
ReplyDeleteIt may be reinventing the wheel.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-health-prison-probation-idUKKCN1AW2DY
'Getafix
Every year, an estimated 2 million people diagnosed with mental illness are jailed in the U.S., and soon after they’re released, many wind up behind bars again.
DeleteBut specialized supervision on probation for people with mental illness can radically reduce the odds they’ll be re-arrested within five years, a new study suggests.
Those who were supervised on specialty probation were nearly three times less likely to return to jail within two years after their release than those on regular probation, researchers reported in JAMA Psychiatry.
Positive support appears to be key, with specialty probation officers acting as part counselor and part cop, said lead author Jennifer Skeem, professor of social welfare and public policy at the University of California at Berkeley.
“It’s about good, caring relationships with a professional. They seem to have that with specialty officers,” she said in a phone interview.
“The rules are clear. There’s fairness, there’s firmness in implementing the rules and then caring. It helps keep people out of trouble with the law,” she said.
Under specialty mental health probation, officers have smaller caseloads and training in mental illness. They coordinate probationers’ treatment and collaborate with treatment providers to keep them out of jail.
Skeem, a clinical psychologist, and her team analyzed data for ethnically diverse men and women from two urban probation agencies, one in Texas using specialty probation, and another in California employing traditional probation. All 359 participants had been diagnosed with mental illness following a psychological evaluation.
The average caseload for specialty probation officers was 50, compared to 100 probationers for traditional officers.
The odds of probationers being arrested after two years were 2.68 times higher for those on traditional probation than for those on specialty probation.
After five years, the probability of re-arrest was 64 percent for traditional probationers, compared to 38 percent for specialty probationers.
Dr. Fred Osher, director of health systems and services policy at The Council of State Governments Justice Center in New York City, called specialty mental health probation “a win-win-win.”
“They’re in the community, they’re getting the support they need, and they’re able to move forward with their own recovery,” he said in a phone interview.
“It’s hard to recover from mental illness if you’re sitting in a jail cell,” said Osher, who was not involved with the study.
The upfront costs for specialty probation are higher, but Skeem said a cost analysis she prepared as part of an as-yet unpublished follow-up study shows that specialty mental health probation saves money over the course of two years. The savings come from the reduced need for emergency room visits and other hospital stays, she said.
The study findings were consistent with less-rigorous studies pointing in the same direction, Osher said.
“It’s research like this that will allow policymakers to consider implementing a program that will have a major impact on people with mental illness in their jails,” he said.
“Even a day or two in jail really messes up a person’s life. You can end up losing your job and housing,” he said. “We want to maximize the use of alternatives to jail if individuals don’t pose a risk.”
Couldn't bring myself to read the complete Raab artical, as a po in NPS I've never had so much nonsense paperwork- those shite home visit assessment forms for one. It asks you to phone a nominated colleague before you enter the house and when you leave. Trouble is we haven't any work mobile phones. The nonsense is that I'm completing them,entering where asked for the number I'm to call-I can't - got no phone! Here's hoping the H&S executive are not involved, as I'm afraid just filling in the form isn't a risk assessment nor by any means a safeguard!
ReplyDelete