Justice Report on the Administration of the Courts
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1987.tb02579.x |
| Date | 01 May 1987 |
| Published date | 01 May 1987 |
REPORTS
OF
COMMITTEES
JUSTICE REPORT
ON
THE
ADMINISTRATION
OF
THE
COURTS
LORD McCluskey suggests, in the last
of
his 1986 Reith Lectures on
“Law, Justice and Democracy,” that “we should be more ready
to
see the courts, notably in civil cases, as being there
to
provide a
social service.”’
To
this end, he goes on, “we must slaughter a few
sacred cows inherited from our history.” Although this observation
is directed mainly at the need (as he sees it)
to
reform trial
procedures (and the Lectures as a whole are a counter-assault
against the campaign for a new Bill of Rights), it also serves as a
timely reminder that, in this as
in
other “social service” contexts,
consumer satisfaction is or should be an important criterion
of
good service. Our legal system’s imperfect realisation
of
this truth
(though
it
is only fair to acknowledge that the Lord Chancellor’s
current Civil Justice Review has shown a modest but welcome
interest in the consumer’s point
of
view2) is the implicit theme
of
a
recent
Justice
Report on
The Administration
of
the
court^.^
The report is the work of a Committee, chaired by John
MacDonald
Q.C.,
charged with investigating “the range and nature
of
complaints about the administration
of
civil and criminal courts
in England and Wales; to assess the adequacy
of
existing channels
for complaints and remedies, and to make recommendations
thereon.” The Committee interprets these terms of reference
narrowly, to exclude: (a) decisions on the merits
of
a case (in
respect
of
which there is usually a right of appeal); (b) the
organisation and conduct of the legal professions; (c) the
shortcomings
of
legal procedure and the organisation
of
legal
service (though
it
does note, in passing, that “the high cost of
litigation is a ~candal”~).
This
is
not the first time that
Justice
has looked at the machinery
for handling complaints about the courts. In 1972 it published a
report on
The Judiciary,
produced by a sub-committee chaired by
Peter Webster Q.C.’ This included a chapter on the supervision
of
judges, which recommended,
inter aka,
the establishment of a
permanent judicial commission to combine the functions
of
advisory
committee for judicial appointments, complaints tribunal and
tribunal to consider recommendations for removing judges from
office.6 However, the 1972 Report, modest though most
of
its
proposals were, proved too hot for the Council of
Justice,
which
I
Lord McCluskcy, “Lions Under the Throne”, The Listener, December
11,
1986.
For
instance, the Study
of
Small Clainis Procedures conducted for the
L.C.D.
by
Justice, The Administratiotr
of
the Courts (1986), cited hereafter
as
“Report.”
Touche Ross, Management Consultants, September 1986.
‘
Ibid., para. 1.7.
’
Justice, The Judiciary, (1972).
Ibid.; Report, paras. 4.11-4.12.
354
To continue reading
Request your trial