The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

REPORT OF THE SUMMARY JUSTICE REVIEW COMMITTEE: SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE WRITTEN CONSULTATION - FINAL REPORT

CHAPTER FIVE UNIFICATION OF THE SUMMARY COURT SYSTEM

INTRODUCTION

5.1 The Committee recommended that the administration of the summary courts be unified under the control of the Scottish Court Service (SCS). The consultation response form stated:

"We would welcome your views on the Review's proposals for a unified summary court."

5.2 This chapter summarises responses relating to this issue.

THE RESPONSES RECEIVED

5.3 Of the 137 respondents who offered a clear view on unification (57% of total responses), 69% agreed with the Report's recommendations and 31% rejected them. A further 43% of respondents (103 responses) did not express a clear preference regarding this recommendation.

5.4 The table below details how each organisational grouping commented upon this area. 42% of JPs were in favour of unification of the Summary Court System and a further 45% made no comment on this issue:

Table 5.1: Unification of all summary courts under SCS - Numerical Responses

IN FAVOUR OF COURT UNIFICATION

5.5 Many of the submissions in favour of unification of the summary court system did not provide detailed arguments for that view. Instead, they expressed support for the arguments put forward in Chapter 5 of the Committee's Report, which were said to be clear and persuasive.

5.6 Amongst those who, in principle, were in favour of unification were the following organisations:

• Glasgow Bar Association
• Law Society of Scotland
• Scottish Law Agents' Society
• Dundee City Council Social Work Department
• East Ayrshire Council
• SOLACE
• West Dunbartonshire Council
• Glasgow City Council
• Scottish Police Federation
• Association of Scottish Police Superintendents
• Scottish Forum for Community Justice
• Association of Lord Lieutenants

5.7 Amongst those who expanded upon their broad reasons for support, we have detailed a selection below, including, where appropriate, their caveats:

Efficiency and Effectiveness

5.8 Many respondents (Scottish Police Federation, ACPOS, many JPs and Justices of the Peace Committees) agreed that it would benefit the smooth operation of the court system if the same body handled all courts administration. This, they believed, would result in greater efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of summary justice in Scotland and an enhanced service overall. The Association of Scottish Police Superintendents considered that there were difficulties in the current disjointed funding and administrative set-up, and thought that unification would bring the court system into line with other public sector organisations, with regard to accountability, audit, and performance monitoring.

5.9 The Glasgow Bar Association "wholeheartedly" agreed with the recommendation for unification, believing it would lead to higher levels of training and result in better consistency of decision making and more cost-effective use of information technology.

5.10 SOLACE also fully supported the recommendation and believed that it would allow for a reduction in the number of courts in use. SOLACE observed that some of these courts may only be in use for very limited periods of the week, and would require significant expenditure to bring them up to standard, particularly to meet requirements on accessibility for disabled people. These underused buildings were seen as a financial burden on some authorities.

5.11 Other respondents acknowledged the work done by local authorities and the district court system to date, but still felt hampered by the two tier system.

Cost Issues

5.12 Some JP responses took issue with what they termed "a rather simplistic cost approach in Chapter 5 of the Report". There was felt to be a lack of explanation and clear understanding of the cost implications of the proposals for a unified summary court system. North Lanarkshire Council, for example, felt that such a simplistic approach was wrong and observed that a process of proper negotiation relating to such issues would be required if such changes were to be made.

5.13 Other local authorities were concerned that the Report failed to recognise the costs of non-court work (e.g. fixed penalties, etc.), and as a result the conclusions on costs were unreliable. In spite of these points a number of local authorities still believed that there was merit in unification.

Caveats

5.14 Some respondents, including West Dunbartonshire Justices' Committee, although concurring in general with the Report's recommendations on the unification of the summary court system, still had a number of caveats to the proposals.

Staff

5.15 Many, particularly local authorities, noted that careful consideration and discussion of the views of existing staff working in the district court (whose opinions did not appear to have been widely canvassed to date) would be necessary - especially regarding any transfer from local government employment to an agency of central government.

5.16 This was felt to be especially important given that staff currently working in district courts have an intimate knowledge of the current district court estate and administration, and would be invaluable in ensuring a smooth transfer to the Scottish Court Service.

5.17 In addition some local authorities felt that the Report glossed over issues of property and staff, merely commenting on the need to "work through in detail with COSLA". Local authorities, JPs and Justice of the Peace Committees stated that they would have to be satisfied that all staff who were identified as carrying out district court work were transferred to the Scottish Court Service with full protection of terms and conditions of employment, and that any arrangement for the continuing use of court buildings would not be to the detriment of local authorities.

Estate Costs

5.18 West Dunbartonshire Justices' Committee questioned the issue of estate costs as follows:

"It will also be apparent that many Local Authorities have their own estate that is used solely for the purpose of the District Court. Will such estate require to be leased from Local Authorities, and, if so, have these costs been factored in to the new proposals?"

Lay Justice within Unified Court System

5.19 Some JPs - in favour of unification of the summary court system and believing that it was a welcome improvement - still felt that a place remained for lay justice within the unified system. One Justice of the Peace commented:

" the opportunity for retaining expertise held collectively in the existing District Court ought to be carefully examined. It may be that this expertise could be drawn on under contractual arrangements".

5.20 A minority of Justices' Committees made clear that they would be willing to serve under a unified summary court (or any suitable form of court administration) and would be prepared to assume additional duties.

Rural Areas

5.21 The Law Society of Scotland - in acknowledging that there were persuasive arguments in favour of the creation of a unified court system - stated that it would only support this recommendation provided that the court system was properly resourced and would continue to allow individuals, particularly those in small towns and rural areas, access to local courts, adding:

"unification should not be to the detriment of local service provision and access to justice".

AGAINST COURT UNIFICATION

5.22 Of the 137 responses received to the consultation that commented upon this area, 31% were against court unification as detailed in the Committee's Report. A range of groups were opposed, including COSLA, some JPs and Justice of the Peace groups, the Sheriffs' Association and some local authorities.

5.23 Overall, most of those against unification acknowledged that there was significant variation in the level and effectiveness of district courts across Scotland. However, a common theme that emerged was that rather than unification, a means of achieving common standards should be sought. This, it was felt, would be far less disruptive and would preserve the best practice that had prevailed in some areas. In addition, they argued, it would serve to strengthen the 'community-based justice' concept.

5.24 Concern was strongly voiced by many of the respondents (COSLA, JPs and local authorities) regarding the anomaly that, despite the Committee not finding a "system in crisis" and stating that "there were few voices demanding a revolutionary change", it had nonetheless recommended unification of the summary courts.

5.25 COSLA commented:

"COSLA is unequivocally in favour of retaining and enhancing current summary justice mechanisms with an improved co-ordination of administration standards across Scotland".

5.26 Inverclyde Council accepted that there was a wide variation in the quality of accommodation provided by local authorities for district courts but argued that this reflected budgetary pressures.

Historical Concept of Community Involvement

5.27 Some JPs were concerned about the potential loss of community participation in the justice system that might be caused by unification. COSLA voiced the thoughts of many when it stated:

"Administration of the District Courts at a Local Government level is a better expression of community participation than administration from a centralised court system. Of all the Courts and Tribunals in Scotland, the District Courts are the closest to the people they serve. If courts are closed, witnesses, police, and accused persons will be greatly inconvenienced, as a result of increased travel, and the time taken to reach court. A local authority is better placed to support the administration of transparent justice than a centralised court authority such as the Scottish Court Service, which is neither local nor democratic".

5.28 Many submissions (in particular, local authorities such as West Lothian Council and East Lothian Council) stated that the continuing desirability of maintaining local district court access was reinforced by reference to recent initiatives brought forward by the Scottish Executive to ensure local access to services at the point of need.

5.29 The Sheriffs' Association had no objection to unification in principle, but was concerned about the proposals, as it was unaware of any complaints or difficulties that had been expressed with the service provided by the local authorities and legally qualified assessors.

5.30 West Lothian Council reiterated the view that summary justice should be dispensed at the most locally accessible and accountable level possible:

"District Courts as presently constituted are community-based and the delivery of justice within them is transparent".

Costs

5.31 Some respondents from the local authority arena did not believe that the unified court would be cheaper to the public purse as this was not substantiated by any figures within the Report.

5.32 The issue commented upon most frequently in relation to costs was the costing exercise referred to in the Report. Most respondents opposed to unification commented that the shortcomings of this data called into question the overall rationale for some of the recommendations, and the likely efficacy of some of the proposals.

5.33 A minority of local authorities also commented upon what they felt was a general lack of financial evidence cited in the Report in support of the recommendations in terms of:

• Additional sheriffs and accommodation;

• Current cost effectiveness of the Scottish Court Service;
• Staff numbers for a new unified court system; and
• Comparative costings for retaining the District Court.

5.34 Both Skye & Lochalsh and Ross & Cromarty Justices of the Peace Committees were concerned about the expenditure that could be wasted in their area as the local authority had spent "hundreds and thousands of pounds" computerising the district court and preparing and testing the linkage between the district court and other agencies in the criminal justice community. A minority of other local authorities had also invested in upgrading their technology and believed they had achieved a high level of standardisation. They suggested that central funding could provide another, higher level of uniformity without the need for unification.

5.35 A further issue of concern to rural authorities was that there would be significant cost implications if unification were to go ahead. The current administration of district courts was seen by Aberdeenshire Council as a relatively inexpensive use of an in-house resource and, taken as a whole, very few of their staff were exclusively engaged upon that function. The same appeared to be true of almost all rural authorities with dispersed service delivery points and courts to administer. Staff in these situations often combined district court duties with other activities. It was perceived that dedicated court sections were only required within the larger urban authorities. Consequently, rural authorities believed that very few staff from their areas would be eligible for transfer, and they predicted that the Scottish Court Service would face recruitment challenges.

Loss of Courts/Staff

5.36 Many of those opposing unification were extremely concerned that it would lead to a loss of local courts and staff. North Lanarkshire's Justices of the Peace Committee was typical of many responses against unification when it stated:

"The proposals of the Review Committee should not be at the cost of rationalisation of experienced local authority legal and administrative staff".

5.37 East Lothian Council further expanded upon this view, stating that the estimates given by the Scottish Court Service as to the number of new staff it would require were substantially lower than the number of staff, both administrative and legal, that were currently employed by the local authorities for this purpose.

5.38 The Sheriffs' Association was also concerned as it assumed that, if the Scottish Court Service took over full responsibility for the district courts, this would include:

• all district court estate and buildings;
• staff;
• salaries (including pensions); and
• the employment of new staff to replace local authority staff who were not assimilated.

5.39 A number of respondents noted that, even if the Scottish Court Service did not physically take over the buildings, in most of the larger towns and cities there would be no prospect of the district court fitting into the same building as the current sheriff court. The Sheriffs' Association went on to say:

"We see the financial implications of all this to be considerable and we must wonder if this is a reasonable and viable suggestion having regard to the scale of the expenditure and whether there has been any assessment of the level of expenditure. We feel bound to ask if that level of expenditure could not be better spent in improving the efficiency of the existing system".

5.40 Dundee City Council and Moray Council expressed concern in their submissions that the Report did not explore the extent to which local authorities had invested in estates. For example, special arrangements had been made in Moray District Court for witnesses, particularly vulnerable witnesses. In addition, Renfrewshire Council stated that significant human and financial resources had been invested over the years in order to create a courthouse and associated facilities of a high standard. This had resulted in a COSLA gold quality award for excellence. The Council was concerned that the level of service provided would not be guaranteed if there was a transfer of function.

Investment in Technology

5.41 There was concern in some quarters (in particular local authorities) regarding the Committee's assertion that a national unified body was required to ensure uniformity of practice in relation to information technology. In its submission, Dundee City Council observed that 75% of criminal court business dealt with by district courts was handled using at least some form of electronic exchange, and used this point to illustrate how local authorities had embraced technological advancement in court processes and the principle of 'e-government'. Furthermore, the Council suggested that there was no evidence that this progress would have been achieved in a different manner if centralisation had been effected:

"In fact... this progress has been made in spite of geographical challenges facing authorities that are responsible for running multiple courts with cases that transfer between them. These challenges have been overcome as a result of the commitment by local authorities to the accurate and expeditious administration of justice".

5.42 Moray Council also made the point that there was no reason why central guidance and a measure of central funding could not be provided to ensure a greater degree of uniformity in information technology.

Current System

5.43 In South Lanarkshire the district court staff had been awarded a Charter Mark for excellence in customer service. South Lanarkshire Council were concerned that these standards would not be adhered to if the district courts joined up with the sheriff court.

5.44 A minority of responses, in particular Dundee City Council, were concerned that the Committee's reasons for selecting the Scottish Court Service were not made clear in the Report. Indeed the Council felt that the Scottish Court Service:

"currently presides over a system that… is less cost-effective, less consistent in its approach to training, and less effective in providing fast and efficient justice than District Courts".

Suggested Alternatives

5.45 A number of those respondents opposed to unification (including JPs, local authorities and COSLA) felt it would be better to address the inconsistencies perceived in the administration of lay justice throughout Scotland by introducing clear guidelines and good practice guides for district courts. These, they stated, would build on the existing services, and would encompass possible increased responsibilities that would alleviate the burdens on sheriff courts. Funding for training and other investment could then reduce administrative inconsistencies if central guidance were used to coordinate training across Commission areas.

5.46 West Lothian Council also believed that many of the criticisms of the district court contained in the Report could be overcome by the provision of specific central funding to local authorities. This could be accompanied by the agreement of a national framework within which local administration of district courts would be undertaken, greater partnership working, expansion of the Integration of Scottish Criminal Justice Information Systems (ISCJIS) programme (enabling electronic information exchange between Scottish criminal justice agencies) to all local authorities, a better electronic link to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and provision of training on a consistent basis across Scotland.

5.47 Some respondents - especially JPs - put forward a proposition for a 'middle-ground' reform where the services of JPs were retained under a unified court system. It was suggested that this would:

• Help to deal with concerns regarding variations in standards and resources;
• Prevent the perceived high costs of setting up a new unified system; and
• Make best use of under-utilised local authority district court property and reduce the likelihood of difficulties relating to compensation for the use of such properties.

5.48 Other JPs (including North Lanarkshire Justices of the Peace Committee) suggested that the formation of an independent national inspectorate for district courts would allay concerns over varying standards across district courts in Scotland.

5.49 Glasgow District Court Legal Assessors also suggested funding the courts centrally whilst retaining the involvement of local councils. It stated that this would mirror the present position of local authority Criminal Justice Social Work Services (i.e. centrally funded by the Executive but democratically controlled by local authorities).

5.50 COSLA observed that the objectives viewed by the Committee as desirable could be achieved utilising the current structure, with improved centralised funding and a level of centralised control over monitoring and standards in district courts. If this approach were to be taken, in conjunction with a revised system for the selection and training of lay justices as outlined in the Note of Dissent, COSLA saw no reason why low tariff criminal cases currently dealt with in the sheriff summary court could not be marked instead for the district court. This would make use of experience already gained by both local authorities and Justices of the Peace in the dispensation of justice at a local level in accordance with local needs.

« Previous | Contents | Next »