« Previous | Contents |
Listen
SUPPORTING COURT USERS:
The In-Court Advice and Mediation Projects in Edinburgh Sheriff Court
RESEARCH PHASE 2
FOOTNOTES
1 Samuel, E. (1999) Supporting Court Users: The In-Court Advice Project in Edinburgh Sheriff Court: Edinburgh: The Stationery Office. See also Research Findings 22: Supporting Court Users, www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/resfinds/1s22--00.htm
2 Scottish Office Home Department (1998) Access to Justice-Beyond the Year 2000: A Consultations Paper on Civil Legal Aid, Edinburgh
3 Samuel, E. (1999) Supporting Court Users: The In-Court Advice Project in Edinburgh Sheriff Court, Edinburgh: The Stationery Office. See also Research Findings 22: Supporting Court Users, www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/resfinds/1s22--00.htm
4 As above
5 According to the National Consumer Council (1992, p.1) 30 schemes were operating in England's 267 county courts at the time of publication.
6 Samuel, E. (1999) Supporting Court Users: The In-Court Advice Project in Edinburgh Sheriff Court: Edinburgh: The Stationery Office. See also Research Findings 22: Supporting Court Users, www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/resfinds/1s22--00.htm
7 Minutes of meeting of Lay Advisers in Glasgow Sheriff Court Group, December 1, 1992.
8 Though representation was thought to be desirable by the Group, it was decided to withhold these services during the period of a pilot project.
9 Civil Judicial Statistics Scotland 1995, Edinburgh: 1996
10 Annual Report of the Scottish Legal Aid Board, 1994-5, p.5
11 Civil Judicial Statistics, 1993 and 1994
12 National Consumer Council (1992), p.2. Research conducted by Shelter Scotland (see Mason, Steve, Rose-Troup Mike with Jones, Norma) (1995) Rent Arrears Actions in the Sheriff Courts, Edinburgh: Shelter Scotland) confirmed some of these findings. In actions for the recovery of heritable property, the appearance of defenders in court and the availability of advice and assistance was found to bring substantial benefits to those against whom actions were brought.
13 Research funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 1996 (Hunter, C., Nixon, J. and Wishart, B. Housing Cases in County Court, Policy Press) reported a significant number of new schemes in the four years since the publication of NCC report ( op.cit.).
14 Samuel, E. (1999) Supporting Court Users: The In-Court Advice Project in Edinburgh Sheriff Court , Edinburgh: The Stationery Office. See also Research Findings 22: Supporting Court Users, www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/resfinds/1s22--00.htm
15 Scottish Office Home Department (1998) Access to Justice-Beyond the Year 2000: A Consultation Paper on Civil Legal Aid, Edinburgh.
16.Scottish Courts Administration, Proposals to Increase Jurisdiction Limits in the Sheriff Court, Edinburgh: SCA, 1998
17 It was also noted that the database into which the Project's business was recorded could not always accommodate the needs of the In-court Adviser. As the volume of business increased, for example, Project client records were no longer filed alphabetically but by the month in which their case file was closed. This meant that 'old' clients were sometimes marked as 'new' clients, particularly when a temporary replacement for the In-court Adviser was on duty. This also had repercussions for the research outwith the accuracy of the data. In Phase 2, unlike Phase 1, it was not possible to identify those clients who returned to the In-court Advice Project with new cases.
18 At the time at which Phase 2 research was conducted, there was some discussion as to the need for 3rd party measures to deal with rental deposits. A decision was therefore made to identify the number of persons seeking advice from the In-court Advice Project on the return of rental deposits.
19 Since many small claims clients sought advice prior to raising an action, it was not always possible to know whether those against whom they were making a claim would be legally represented should an action be raised.
20 As of 2000, these cases are now within the remit of the In-court Advice Project.
21.Some responsibility may also be attributed to different methods of recording. Once assistants were in place, it was possibly assumed that all clients referred from the court had been 'caught' and referred by Project staff/assistants and not by the Clerk of Court.
22 Though outwith the remit of Phase 1 of the research, information on business conducted in January and February 1999 was collected to inspect for the impact of the December break on business volume. Decrease in the volume of business in December was not found to be indicative of a real decrease.
23 Because of this, return consultations were more likely to be in person (56% of all return consultations) than initial consultations (54% of initial consultations) in Phase 2 of the Project. Also, consultations with pursuers were less likely to be conducted in person than consultations with defenders (41% compared with 57%).
24 Edinburgh Sheriff Court Advice Service Project-Mediation: End of Year Report July 1998 to March 1999
25 The ACCORD scheme was set up by the Law Society of Scotland to accredit solicitors as solicitor-mediators.
26 See Edinburgh Sheriff Court Advice Service Project-Mediation: Fourth Steering Committee Report (unpublished)
27 The In-court Advice Project saw 1017 clients between 1 December 1998 and 31 August 1999, 99 of whom were referred to the Mediation Project. The Mediation Project saw an additional 52 clients. If both Projects were to be seen as a unitary body, therefore, a total of 1069 clients were advised during this time period.
28 There are likely to be some errors in the quantitative analyses reported here because of occasional ambiguities in the data. Thus, for example, it is not always clear whether referrals have been made by the Mediation Co-ordinator in her role as Mediation Co-ordinator or in her role as replacement for the In-court Adviser (annual or sick leave). Where ambiguities occur and no In-court Advice Project client records are held, these cases were categorised as 'Don't Know'.
29 These clients may have been referred on the day of the Full Hearing but prior to their case calling in court. Uncertainties reside in possible inconsistent categorisation of information between the In-court Advice and the Mediation Projects.
30 This may reflect differences in coding practices between the In-court Adviser and the Mediation Co-ordinator or it could reflect differences between those who seek advice from the In-court Advice Project and those who appear in the small claims/summary cause court without first seeking advice from the In-court Advice Project.
31 This may also reflect differences in coding practices between the In-court Adviser and the Mediation Co-ordinator
32 The numbers involved are too small to draw safe conclusions.
33 Neither mediator interviewed during the course of Phase 2 research knew of the In-court Advice Project and its relationship with the Mediation Project.
34 Because the Mediation Co-ordinator did assist negotiation as well as arrange mediation hearings, 'assisted negotiation' has been left in this study to refer to the "shuttle diplomacy" undertaken by the Mediation Co-ordinator.
35 ibid.
36 This is no longer the case since September 1999.
37 Interestingly, in this case, the defender complained of the circumstances under which the original court order was made, viz., her ex-husband had been in court with legal representation but she had been unable to afford legal representation.
38 This might occur, for example, if the Sheriff had asked the party whether or not he had consulted with the In-court Adviser.
39 One solicitor related a case in which her opponent, a party litigant, refused to take the advice of the In-court Adviser, appealed the sheriff's decision and lost: "We won and got expenses". In another case in which the same solicitor was involved, her opponent did not understand that he had no defence until he had spoken to the In-court Adviser. He accepted the In-court Adviser's advice and the case was settled out of court.
40 See following two footnotes
41 Comprising Wester Hailes (31), Pilton (18), Portobello (17), Central Edinburgh (12), Leith (11), Gorgie (8), Other (7)
42 Comprising Pilton (19), Portobello (37), Central Edinburgh (25), Leith (49), Gorgie (17), Other (12). Wester Hailes CAB became CHAI.
43 As above
« Previous | Contents |