http://www.lccsa.org.uk/news.asp?ItemID=49506
Ok, I admit, there's a lot of stuff here I simply don't understand - them fancy English words etc. And then there's tremendous amount of detail in regards to the judicary process that I do not know about.
That said, I do not get how privatizing a court is in any way a good idea.
Please someone enlighten me. At least explain to me how a supporter of this motion doesn't think it is institutional suicide.
Quote:
|
Courts in England and Wales are facing wholesale privatisation under revolutionary plans that would end the system that has existed since Magna Carta. The idea would establish the courts service as a commercial enterprise, paying its way and freed from Treasury control, with court buildings and thousands of staff put in the hands of private companies. It would save the Ministry of Justice £1 billion a year. Funding for the courts would be generated by bigger fees from wealthy litigants and private sector investment, with hedge funds encouraged to invest by an attractive rate of return. To counter judges fears that privatisation would erode independence, the courts could be placed under a Royal Charter as proposed for regulating the press. Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, instructed officials this year to explore plans for reform to ensure that the Courts and Tribunal Service provides value for money. A paper outlining options is expected to go to Mr Grayling within two weeks, with a tight timetable for action under which the shake-up could proceed this autumn. The plan is strongly backed by the Justice Secretary. Options under discussion include hiving off court buildings to a private company, which would run and maintain them, or a more radical proposal in which the 20,000 courts staff would also transfer to the private sector. Crucially, the plans do not involve judges or Britains 25,000 magistrates. But leading legal figures opposed even the more conservative option. The former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said: I am all in favour of making more money from commercial court users, and I am also all in favour of those who commit crime making a bigger contribution to the courts. What I am not in favour of is privatising the courts. The courts should not be beholden to any private provider because the courts have to be independent of every interest. In particular I would be strongly against court buildings being placed in the hands of private providers. We should not have [them] influencing when courts open and close their doors or judges having to negotiate with private contractors over whether, for instance, a court can be open on a Saturday for an emergency injunction. Such control, he added, was not compatible with independent justice. It is not just about independence of spirit, but about places to do justice. Maura McGowan, QC, chairman of the Bar Council, described the plan as extraordinary and fundamental. She said: Courts are so much part of the justice system that they ought, in a proper society, to be administered by Government as a public institution, just like the health service. The human rights lawyer and cross-bench peer Lord Pannick, QC, said that it was right for commercial court users to face higher costs. But he added: In principle I would be very concerned about whether the driver of economic efficiency in a privatised system would be compatible with maintaining the independent administration of justice. Others questioned whether the private sector had the skills to manage courts and tribunals. Penelope Gibbs, director of Transform Justice, said: Private management of our courts risks making them even less accountable, reducing the influence of magistrates and judges and thwarting efforts to involve the community in justice. Slaughter and May, one of the City magic circle law firms, and the management consultants McKinsey have been helping to draw up the proposals. Officials want to capitalise on the popularity of the commercial courts. Litigants such as the Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich would be made to pay hugely increased court fees. This would subsidise criminal courts, where Mr Grayling has already outlined plans to make defendants pay their costs if found guilty. Fines and fixed-penalty notices would provide another multimillion-pound income stream. There will be further mergers and between 80 and 100 court closures are expected to be announced shortly. Plans have been drawn up by senior officials in the Courts and Tribunals Service, including Sir Robert Ayling, chairman of the Courts and Tribunals Service Board, and its chief executive, Peter Handcock, in discussion with senior judges led by Lord Justice Gross, the senior presiding judge. Officials have kept the master plan secret. The only public reference was in a statement to Parliament in March, when Mr Grayling announced that his department would explore reforms. He said: The courts and tribunals are at the centre of our justice system, relied on by the public to enforce their rights and uphold the rule of law. As in other areas, we need to look at the way we deliver our services to provide a more efficient service that delivers access to justice quickly and effectively, while delivering value for money for the taxpayer. At the same time, we must preserve the independence of the judiciary, which lies at the heart of our constitutional arrangements. Mr Grayling added that he wanted to ensure that those who litigate in court pay their fair share, and that it is possible to raise the revenue and investment necessary to modernise the infrastructure and deliver a better and more flexible service to court users. |
That said, I do not get how privatizing a court is in any way a good idea.
Please someone enlighten me. At least explain to me how a supporter of this motion doesn't think it is institutional suicide.