Assessing magistrates court shake-up

By Jon Silverman Legal affairs analyst

The Bar Council has called one of the proposals " justice light"

Plans to speed up the administration of justice inevitably run into the "slippery slope" response.

When the government proposed to reduce the relatively small number of cases where a defendant could elect to be tried by a jury, opponents countered that it was the start of a wider assault on the ancient right to jury trial.

And though plans to deal with a large number of low-level offences without a magistrates court hearing will save millions of pounds, critics fear that it is part of a worrying trend towards administrative justice.

The Bar Council has called the proposal "justice light".

An early forerunner to the government's white paper, the Auld Report of 2001, recommended using on-the-spot fines for TV licence evaders and an incentive system to encourage people to pay fines promptly.

The white paper proposes that the time-consuming job of setting the level of a fine will no longer be done by the bench but by a fines officer, who is not a judicial figure.

Since over 95% of all criminal cases in England and Wales are heard before local magistrates, it is understandable that improving efficiency is high on the government agenda Jon Silverman

However, their decisions will be subject to appeal to the court. Many will say this makes sound administrative sense.

But the intention to allow courts to publish through the media the details and photographs of fine defaulters wanted on warrant may raise accusations of unfair "naming and shaming".

Proposals to deal with a range of more minor motoring offences without a court appearance are interesting - especially where they involve clamping vehicles.

The DVLA already has powers to clamp vehicles where the road tax has not been paid. And a pilot scheme in the West Country found that the clamping sanction has a salutary effect in recovering unpaid fines.

But motoring organisations may well have reservations about the plan to allow fines officers to issue an order to have a vehicle clamped, towed away and held in storage.

Critical scrutiny

Behind these proposals is the recognition that, for a system costing £7bn annually, the criminal justice process gives remarkably poor value for money.

Since over 95% of all criminal cases in England and Wales are heard before local magistrates, it is understandable that improving efficiency is high on the government agenda.

But its own performance has not escaped critical scrutiny.

The handling of a computer system called Libra to link all magistrates courts was condemned by a Commons committee as a highly expensive fiasco.

And political opponents have attacked court closures.

But it is clear that public confidence rests squarely on the courts being seen to dispense justice more swiftly, with more sensitivity towards victims and witnesses and with greater consistency.