Evidence submitted by the Greater London
Family Panel
INTRODUCTION
1. (a) The Greater London Family Panel
(GLFP) welcomes the opportunity to submit a paper to the Constitutional
Affairs Select Committee Inquiry into the way in which Courts
deal with family cases. This is in addition to a response to "Parental
Separation: Children's Needs and Parents' Responsibilities"
made on behalf of the Panel by the Legal Committee.
(b) The GLFP comprising some 650 Magistrates
commenced in January 2004 and is an amalgamation of the Inner
London Family Proceedings Panel sitting at Wells Street, and the
20 Outer London Family Proceedings Courts Panels sitting in 20
different Court Houses throughout London. We are therefore uniquely
placed to make representations on the positive contribution of
the Family Proceedings Courts to the Family Justice System based
on our experiences from both a dedicated family court and from
Family Proceedings Courts located in busy multi-jurisdictional
Magistrates Courts.
(c) One of the purposes of setting up the
GLFP is to support the establishment of regional specialist family
centres throughout Greater London with a dedicated staff able
to provide court users with daily access and advice. The proposal
is for these courts to combine the work of different tiers of
court in one location allowing for the listing of work at the
appropriate level and for the transfer of work between the tiers
as necessary. Responsibility for these proposals has passed from
the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority to Her Majesty's
Court Service and timetabling is currently uncertain. In the meantime,
we are concerned to improve service delivery, improve outcomes
for children and to reduce delay.
(d) The resident District Judge at the Inner
London Family Proceedings Court has submitted a paper which we
have had sight of.
(e) As stated in our response to the consultation
we agree with the legal position described and look to Government
to confirm their commitment by legislation and the provision of
resources. We therefore confine our submission to case management,
court procedures and listing arrangements for private law work.
In addition we are mindful of the change in courts administration
to HMCS in general and to the aims and objectives for the London
panel in particular.
SPECIALISATION
2. (a) Since the introduction of Family
Proceedings Courts on the implementation of the Children Act 1989.
Magistrates have undertaken multi-agency training and developed
knowledge of children's development and needs. The formation of
the dedicated court at Wells Street in Inner London in 1997 has
enabled expertise to further develop and the workload to increase,
with the result that service delivery has improved, delay reduced
and there has been a reduction in unit costs. With this in mind
the GLFP was set up in order to extend these benefits across London
and promote consistency.
(b) Currently throughout the Outer London
area, family proceedings work is carried out against a backdrop
of busy local Magistrates Courts under pressure from heavy workloads
in the Adult Crime Courts and the Youth Courts and where there
is a shortage of Legal Advisers and Administrative staff.
(c) We would therefore support initiatives
outlined by the DCA to increase specialisation in Family Proceedings
Courts and would like to see them put into practice at local court
level.
DELAY IN
PRIVATE LAW
PROCEEDINGS
3. (a) The GLFP is concerned about delays
in proceedings in both the County Courts and the PRFD. This varies
in different courts. We understand that this is due partly to
volume of work and partly due to the delay in the writing of welfare
reports by CAFCASS Officers.
(b) Currently, Private Law work can commence
either at the FPC level or in the County Court. Due to a preferential
fee structure favouring the County Court a high percentage of
work commences at that level.
(c) In the longer term, we would propose
that all private Law cases should commence in the family proceedings
court and be transferred to the county court according to prescribed
criteria as is the practice in public law cases. Meanwhile, we
propose transfer of appropriate work down to make use of spare
capacity in the FPC's. Work is transferred from the PRFD to Wells
Street where the flexibility of a large dedicated courthouse enables
a high volume of work to be carried out but levels vary in the
Outer London Courts where in some areas little or no work is transferred
to the family proceedings court. Transfer of work to the family
proceedings court would not only make use of spare capacity in
the FPC's would free county court Judges to deal with more complex
matters.
POWERS OF
THE COURTS
4. We refer to Page 2 of our response to
the Green Paper on Enforcement which emphasises the differences
between the powers available to the FPC and the county court.
On occasion a case is transferred to the county court purely to
enable that court to make use of its greater powers. This can
cause delay. We would suggest that as all courts dealing with
Children Act and Family Law Act matters are applying the same
legislation, the same methods of enforcement should be available
to them.
In conclusion we quote The Hon Mr Justice Munby
when giving judgment in Re D (Intractable Contact Dispute: Publicity)
2004 ". . . In dealing with fast-track cases, even if they
have entered the system in the county court, greater use should
be made of the skill and expertise of the lay justices and district
judges (magistrates) who sit in the family proceedings courts
[which] are an invaluable and, at least in private law cases,
a seriously under-used resource . . ." (ref. Family Law P
320 May 2004.)
The lay Magistrates on the Greater London Family
Panel are committed to providing the best outcomes for the children
and families subject to proceedings in the family courts. If required
we would be happy to attend and appear before the Select Committee
Margaret Wilson
Chairman
Greater London Family Panel
1 November 2004
| 
