Rewriting the rules

With court closures, budget cuts and legal aid reforms, this year will see profound changes to the delivery of justice in Britain. District judges, as the face of local justice, will be at the frontline of change and their challenge will be to find new solutions to deal with the growing number of applicants queuing outside their courts.

The man to help them negotiate this sticky situation is Paul Mildred, district judge at Bournemouth County Court, regular Solicitors Journal contributor and newly elected president of the Association of District Judges.

Although most could see it coming, the government's decision to shortlist 142 local courts for the cull nonetheless left the association shocked, with 49 of the 54 county courts on the list now facing the chop.

Like most, Paul Mildred agrees with the proposition that public money has to be used more sparingly. The disappointment came from the fact that the association had put forward 'a strong case', he says, arguing that the closure of nearly one in four county courts would genuinely undermine access to justice for the local community.

Mildred readily concedes that some closures would be justified regardless of the current austerity drive. But for the majority of courts, he says, this will adversely affect access to justice for local communities.

Protecting the most vulnerable is an argument that has been run consistently by opponents to the government's proposed cuts in relation to the justice system. One difficulty is to quantify that risk against apparently convincing Ministry of Justice sums.

Mildred accepts that run of the mill civil cases won't be hit too hard. But it will be people in particularly difficult or urgent circumstances who will be caught out, he says. Take, for instance, a tenant about to be evicted at 9:30am the following day, or a victim of domestic violence seeking an emergency application who will have to travel 30 miles to the nearest court to make an application to suspend. Here, the opportunity for telephone access to court staff may not resolve the issue of wangling a listing in a matter of hours.

Tearing up the map

But, unlike some of their magistrates counterparts, county court judges have rejected the idea of bringing judicial review proceedings against the closures.

Their view is that the closures are a done deal, so the priority instead is to get as closely involved with the restructuring as possible.

First on the list is to tear up the present jurisdiction map, currently based on parishes. The government's post-closure plan is to transfer the jurisdiction of the defunct courts to the largest county court in the parish on the ground of capacity to absorb judicial business. Instead, district judges say the county courts should be given jurisdiction on the basis of geographical proximity and court resources reallocated accordingly. This, they hope, will achieve a more rational distribution of court business across the country.

Then there is the wider point of cut back in court resources. 'The more pressure there is on judicial time, the more necessary it is for us to ensure that our time is put to best possible use,' says Mildred. One of his main frustrations is the involvement of judges in decisions that require straightforward application of a rule, which Mildred is confident experienced senior court staff are equipped to do: 'We find ourselves making decisions that require little legal knowledge or judicial expertise but are a matter of common sense and practice, such as whether the rate at which Mrs X should pay her debt.'

Keeping track

Possibly the greatest change would come from a review of the level at which cases are heard. The jurisdiction of the county courts is wide, spanning high values claims in family cases, disputes over the valuation of shares or property, through to commercial disputes, accident claims and contract disputes '“ for which county courts have unfettered jurisdiction up to £25,000.

Beyond that limit, cases are allocated to district judges at the discretion of the local designated civil judge where he or she believes it is a good use of the county court's resources. There are no general rules applicable to all county courts across the country, which Mildred says can result in widely different approaches.

In his court in Bournemouth, district judges have 'carte blanche' to hear multi-track cases up to £50,000, and frequently above that. In some areas, district judges have a dispensation up to £100,000, while in others a district judge never gets anywhere near a multi-track case.

'In some areas circuit judges are still regularly hearing fast-track cases, which seems to be an odd use of resources,' he continues. 'We have jurisdiction to hear fast-track cases and so we should be hearing all of them.'

The underlying principle seems rational. For the same reason that it makes sense for non-judicial staff to deal with non-legal matters, it makes sense for cases to be heard at the lowest judicial level possible. It is purely a matter of cost efficiency. 'We cost less than circuit judges, and in turn judicial staff cost less than us,' Mildred says.

The forthcoming cuts are likely to present a capacity problem but the judge believes nonetheless that the shift in workload can be absorbed at all levels.

It is because of the cuts, he says, that it is important that district judges spend less time on non-judicial matters, let support staff handle these, and therefore free some space to take on some of the work currently handled by circuit judges.