Not another wine bar

The consultation has not been costed at all, and is based upon some assumptions, and in some instances no assumption at all. The impact assessment (IA) says: 'Due to their uncertainty and the absence of key data, a number of other costs and benefits (e.g. including future estate sales receipts) have not yet been calculated.'

Any disposal of the court estate would be brought to market at a time of falling property prices (and could bring accusations that the Ministry of Justice is acting in a similar way to Gordon Browns decision to sell UK gold reserves if property prices rise in the future).

Then there is the impact on court users. The IA considers that there will be a wide impact (page 5) not just on judiciary, staff, general public, defendants, witnesses, victims, lawyers, barristers and businesses who provide services in courts, but also on the CPS, police and National Offender Management Services. Is it not likely that cuts to the courts will have a significant knock-on effect, perhaps with waves of redundancies elsewhere?

The impact assessment, dated 23 June 2010, puts forward the following options: option 1, 'do nothing' (and it is very clear that they do not like that) or option 2, 'let's sell the courts'. The IA gives the impression that everything has already been decided and the consultation is only paying lip service. If the courts are underused, why not physically divide them and sublet? Surely that would be a more sustainable approach than an uncosted fire sale of assets (especially in this market). Could one of the county courts to be closed be turned into a bulk centre like the one in Northampton?

Bursting at the seams

The employment tribunal system is breaking at the seams, and the court system and the tribunals service were bundled together earlier this year. We have the highest amount of employment tribunal claims ever recorded and this looks set to increase as a consequence of public sector redundancies.

Why not modify the buildings so they can be utilised by the tribunal service? That would also take the pressure off some overused tribunals. The government even acknowledges the problem in the IA (page 8): 'The merger of HMCS and HM Tribunals Service in April 2010 could put strains on courtroom availability for tribunal service hearings.' Is there a plan B if the amount of cases increases? Or will they build more later on?

Solicitors appear to be unaware of the extent of the proposed cuts. In London the proposal is to close the magistrates' courts in Acton, Barking, Brentford, Harrow, Kingston upon Thames, Sutton and Woolwich, as well as Balham, Tower Bridge, Highgate and Waltham Forest. There is also a plan to merge the 28 local justice areas to create nine local justice areas '“ involving the closure of Ilford County Court and the Mayor and City of London Court.

Losing a legacy

The Mayor and City of London Court is described in the consultation as an 'ornate neo-gothic' style but not fit for modern county court use. The 2009/10 operating cost of the court was £206,312, and it would be interesting to compare this to the proposed savings of sending the work over to Shoreditch. What of the delay to proceedings? How many cases are listed in Shoreditch at present? How will this caseload be absorbed into the system? Will additional courtrooms magically appear, with staff transfer? I doubt it.

The Mayor and City of London Court has a particular historic value. It is the only county court in the UK not to have 'county' in its title. Should this wonderful historic legacy come to an end, and the success of its mediation service be stopped? Can we expect it to be turned into another wine bar? I hope not.

A specific point made in the consultation for London (on page 48) is that 'it has been very difficult to do anything at all to improve accessibility for court users with a disability, with access for wheelchair users especially difficult'. This assertion is be directly contradicted in the profile listed on the courts service website, which explains that it has disabled access, and hearing enhancement facilities. Which is correct?

An unspecific impact assessment

The impact assessment on the proposals is rather odd. Here are a few observations:

The policy will be reviewed to establish its impact to which policy objectives have been achieved is 01/2020 (page 1). Why is this so far away, is this usual?

It does not seem to have been adequately costed. It refers to 'monetised' and 'non-monetised benefits' throughout. On page 2 it declares that 'HMCS would receive revenue from estates, although uncertainty both over future real estate values and the sequencing of court estate sales has meant that it could not be estimated at this stage of the IA'.

And later on that page, 'the absence of key data, a number of other costs and benefits have not been calculated. An assumption of the net benefit calculations reported here is that all staff in closed courts relocate to neighbouring courts along with work load. The main risks are uncertainly of the future impact in utilisation levels of individual's courts, particularly from unforeseen increases in demand. As well as the risk of poor change management that could impact on individual court work volumes.' This is surely our central concern, and is it worth the risk?

Page 5 of the IA states: 'The monetised costs and benefits outlined in this paper only focus on the running cost savings accrued from court closures' '“ why not extend this further to give a full picture and, dare I say it, a transparent one?

On page 6 the IA boldly states that 'the costs associated with estate disposal (e.g. legal, valuation, advertising and estate agents costs) have not been calculated as many of these are dependent on the value of the buildings disposed'. There are a fair few conveyancers out there who could readily give HM Courts Service an estimate of likely costs.

What about the court staff, will they be made redundant? The IA hints that there will be redundancies in the future on page 8 (main assumptions): 'Staff costs impacts will be appraised more fully at the implementation stage of the impact assessment.'

Impact test (page 9) 'justice impact test' states that 'there may also be additional impacts for legal aid if the allocation of outstanding cases across the remaining pool of magistrates' courts generates capacity issues at those courts; for example, there may be implications for the demands placed on the court duty solicitor scheme. A more detailed and comprehensive evaluation of these impacts will be undertaken during the consultation period'.