« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
The Summary Justice Review Committee: REPORT TO MINISTERS
Chapter 30: COURT SITTING HOURS
30.1 It was suggested during the course of our consultations that we should consider the length of the court day with a view to extending it at either end or both. At present courts sit in public in most courts from 9.30 a.m. or 10 a.m. until 1 p.m. and from about 2 p.m. until business is completed. On most days in most courts business will be completed by at about 4.30 p.m., though there are regular exceptions to that in some places, notably Glasgow Sheriff Court when dealing with custody cases (see para 10.15 which discusses the issue of custody courts in more detail).
30.2 Between May and September 2002 the Lord Chancellor's Department arranged for there to be two extended court sitting hours pilots: at Bow Street Magistrates' Court in London and at Manchester City Magistrates' Court. As part of the Manchester City Magistrates' Court pilot three custody courts started at 9 a.m. to deal with overnight police custody cases involving adults. Some members of the Committee visited Manchester City Magistrates' Court during that pilot. There were notices within the court building advising solicitors that they had to have seen their clients in custody prior to the court commencing at 9 a.m. The purpose of this pilot was to improve access to justice and reduce court delays. During the period of the pilot 534 defendants appeared between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. out of an eligible total of 1,145 prisoners in custody who had been delivered to the court before 8 a.m. On average 24 defendants were dealt with on Mondays and 12 on other days. Most were dealt with for minor offences: theft, breach of the peace, failure to surrender to custody in accordance with the terms of their bail and breach of other bail conditions. In the pre-pilot period there were more cases of assault, burglary and driving while disqualified. 64% of those who appeared pleaded guilty and 60% were dealt with. It was thought that these rates were not significantly different from the rates prior to the pilot. The way the pilot was run suggested that the gains were not significant. Throughput was lower and the same number of morning courts spilled into the afternoon as before. The evaluation did not recommend the roll-out of that scheme to other courts.
30.3 In Manchester City Magistrates' Court they also piloted evening courts. Two courts were made available to hear trials from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays. There was a restriction on trials which could be heard during those periods to cases which could not result in a custodial sentence (because of practical difficulties of dealing late in the day with those sentenced to or ordered to be detained in custody). The court heard only a limited number of cases many of them not involving civilian witnesses. The objective of this pilot was to reduce delay and improve court services to victims and witnesses. In practice nine out of 10 cases which went to trial in evening courts were for motoring offences. The percentage of trials which did not go ahead on the day was broadly similar to that prior to the pilot although more trials were ineffective. It was possible to fix trial dates for evening courts for five weeks ahead instead of an average of 12 for normal trials but that may not have been sustainable. The court was unwilling to load the diary with large numbers of cases for that time of day. The evaluation of these schemes concluded that: "The pilot schemes were significantly more expensive than normal court business and did not represent value for money."
30.4 The pilot at Bow Street Magistrates' Court involved courts sitting from 6 p.m. until midnight on Fridays and Saturdays to deal with the first appearance of defendants who had been charged along with those who were appearing on warrant. Those who were remanded in custody had to be detained overnight in police custody rather than being sent to a prison. When the Bow Street pilot was being planned it was envisaged that the courts would be dealing with offenders charged with street crime. For defendants with mental health problems there were difficulties gaining out of hours access to information held by the Probation Service. The overall volume of work coming through these courts was low. On average nine to ten defendants appeared per session, which was significantly fewer than would appear before a typical day time court. It was found that the courts sat on average for one hour 37 minutes out of a possible 5 hours. Those who did appear appeared most often for theft, failure to surrender to custody in accordance with the terms of their bail and begging. The scheme had limited impact on dealing with public order offences because the cut-off time for the last arrests occurred before the peak arrest times for that type of offence. The courts had the effect that defendants were dealt with earlier than they otherwise would have been in that they did not have to remain in custody until Saturday or Monday morning. The Bow Street pilot was about three times as expensive per weighted case load as normal business, a significant proportion of the cost being required to cover secure transport to and from court, but staff costs were significant including premium payments for late or extended working hours. It was concluded that the pilot schemes as constituted did not offer value for money.
30.5 So far as summary criminal cases in Scotland are concerned, it is our impression, partly based on the very recent experience in England and Wales, that such pilots would require to be very clearly focused if they were to have any material chance of success. There would be no obvious advantage in extending court hours in courts which are not under pressure. There is an obvious advantage in courts which are under pressure in making use of the court buildings for more hours in the day. However, these courts are staffed mainly by full-time staff who are already committed to a full working day. Either a second shift would have to be contemplated or existing staff would have to be remunerated appropriately for an extended day. In a court a lot of work goes on at times of the day when the court is not sitting. That work would still have to be done. There are limits to the number of hours those in court can concentrate sufficiently on the business in hand. A court sitting day of significantly more than 41/2 to 5 hours if it were to happen regularly might not prove to be sustainable because after about that length of time the intense concentration required becomes rapidly more difficult. Solicitors, particularly those in smaller firms, have other work to do and need to be able to spend part of their working day in their offices. Procurators fiscal require preparation and reading time before appearing in court. We consider that, if there were to be regular extended hours in larger busier courts, it would be necessary to think more in terms of operating a second shift. It might be possible for the first shift to start at 9 a.m. and conclude about 2.30 or 3 p.m. and for another shift to start at about that time and continue into the evening. Having said that we are far from convinced that the advantages of such an arrangement would outweigh the disadvantages. It would be necessary to be clear what the purpose of that arrangement was and to evaluate carefully the costs of operating it. Many people in Scotland have their evening meal at a time which would coincide with court sittings. There may be transport problems for civilian witnesses who have to travel outwith normal working hours and some may have concerns about their safety in travelling to or from court in the evening. Expecting police officers to attend court as witnesses in the evenings, particularly at the weekends, could impose unacceptable demands on their resources. If courts are to be held late in the day there would be difficulties transporting offenders to prison and young offenders' institutions because the Scottish Prison Service does not normally admit prisoners on a 24-hour-a-day basis. As the transfer of prisoners will become the responsibility of a contractor from the spring of 2004 onwards there might be no Scottish Prison Service staff on duty who were able to admit prisoners at a late hour in the evening.
We do not make any recommendation for the regular extension of court hours.
We recommend that courts should have responsibility for making the best use of the resources available to them. In doing so they should consider adjusting their hours of sitting to suit local circumstances. This is a matter which local criminal justice boards may wish to consider in more detail.
« Previous | Contents | Next »