2 Delays and resource issues
4. The Committee raised with the judiciary the continuing
problem of delays in the family courts and the extent to which
such delays were due to a lack of adequate resources. Prior to
the evidence session, the Law Society wrote to the Committee indicating
that, in its view, delays were still a significant problem, particularly
in the Principal Registry of the Family Division. Sir Mark Potter
informed the Committee that in the light of difficulties in obtaining
additional resources, a decision had been taken to "cascade"
cases down to the Family Proceedings Courts (FPCs). He said:
In May 2005 the senior judiciary accepted the
recommendation of the Judicial Resources Review that within the
new unified administration (now including the magistrates' courts)
it is necessary to introduce a strategy of "cascading down"
within the system in order to relieve the pressure from the High
Court judiciary, whose workload is increasing and whose numbers
are capped; and in turn to relieve the workload on the judges
of the county court. For this purpose, in my first year I have
been focusing on the initial steps to be taken in a three-year
strategy to achieve greater flexibility in distributing work between
family judges in the county court, district judges and family
magistrates in the family proceedings courts (FPCs) where there
is undoubtedly spare capacity.[2]
5. He went on to add that:
In the case of the magistrates, a variety of
measures are being instituted to encourage a shift of work to
the FPCs. A key requirement in that respect is that those magistrates
who wish to do so should be allowed to specialise in family work
and to sit for longer periods for the purpose of hearing the more
substantial cases, rather than being required, as hitherto, to
give much of their time to criminal work. If this strategy is
successful - and it will need to be if the delays are to be contained
- then consideration of the workings of family justice will need
to concentrate upon the work of the FPCs as much as on the High
Court and county court […] There is an urgent need for additional
legal officers to be available to run the specialist FPCs, which
I see as critical to the expansion of their work and a reduction
in delays throughout the system.[3]
6. Sir Mark reiterated the difficulties in respect
of FPCs a number of times in his evidence, while Audrey Damazer
went on to say that:
[O]ne of our fears is, as the President pointed
out, that if there are going to be cuts and we do not increase
the number of legal advisers, or not replace the legal advisers
we have, then we are not going to be able to take on this work.[4]
7. In response to the concerns expressed by the judiciary,
the Chairman of the Committee wrote to the Lord Chancellor, indicating
that any reduction in the number of legal advisers would be unacceptable
and that every effort should be made to facilitate the "cascading"
scheme promoted by the judiciary. The correspondence can be found
at the Appendix at page 12.
8. In its report in the last Parliament, the Committee
observed that "District Judge Nicholas Crichton is the only
full time Family Proceedings Court district judge in England and
Wales who is designated to sit 100% on family cases […] The
benefit to the parties […] of having a full time district
judge holding the case are equally plain to see. There should
be recruitment or allocation of far more full time specialist
'family' district judges (magistrates court) to this work."[5]
9. In oral evidence to the Committee, District Judge
Crichton informed us that:
I am still, sadly, the only district judge in
the magistrates' courts who sits in family full-time; I would
wish very much that that were not the case […] I have been
pushing for it for a long time, but I am told it cannot happen.
I do not see any good reason why it should not happen. There are
also the legal advisers who sit in our court, and particularly
at Wells Street where they are specialists. They are all legally
qualified, and many of them would make excellent deputies and
possibly future appointments; but at the moment we do not seem
to be able to get past that obstacle, which I find very disappointing.[6]
10. We are disappointed that it appears that the
Department's continuing difficulties with resources seem to be
preventing the judiciary from reducing the delays in the family
court system. The move towards "cascading down" cases
to the Family Proceeding Courts seems a sensible use of existing
resources and we trust that the Department will not hinder this
scheme by reducing the number of legal advisers provided to the
Family Proceedings Courts, or by failing to fill posts that become
vacant.
11. We are also surprised that there has been
no movement in increasing the number of District Judges (Magistrates
Court) sitting full time in the Family Proceedings Courts. This
would seem a sensible course, ensuring judicial continuity and
specialisation in family cases. We hope the Department will investigate
the current obstacles to further such appointments.
2 Q1 Back
3
Q2 Back
4
See Q11 and also the evidence of District Judge Crichton and Audrey
Damazer at Qq15-18 Back
5
HC 116-I, para 75 Back
6
Q16, 18 Back
|
