MoJ denies plan for 'wholesale privatisation' of courts service
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has denied reports that it is considering a "wholesale privatisation" of the courts system as it weighs up propsals to cut costs and make the current system more efficient. A report in The Times today (28 May) suggests the MoJ is considering putting court buildings and staff "in the hands of private companies" in a bid to save as much as £1bn a year.
May 28, 2013 at 09:26 AM
4 minute read
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has denied reports that it is considering a "wholesale privatisation" of the courts system as it weighs up propsals to cut costs and make the current system more efficient.
A report in The Times today (28 May) suggests the MoJ is considering putting court buildings and staff "in the hands of private companies" in a bid to save as much as £1bn a year.
Although the MoJ confirmed it is currently looking at ways in which it could "deliver a courts system that is more effective and efficient", the suggestion of a "wholesale privatisation" was rejected.
An MoJ spokesperson said: "We have always said we are determined to deliver a courts system that is more effective and efficient and provides improved services for victims and witnesses.
"The proposals being considered are not the wholesale privatisation of the courts service. We are committed to the firm, fair and independent administration of justice."
The Times suggests that one option under discussion is a proposal which would see 20,000 courts staff transferred to the private sector, with court buildings run and maintained by a private company, but that the plans do not involve judges or Britain's 25,000 magistrates.
The article suggests that funding would be generated by fees from wealthy litigants, as well as investment from hedge funds.
Slaughter and May has a longstanding relationship with the Government, and has acted on a raft of major mandates, although the firm declined to comment on whether it is advising the MoJ on any current proposals.
The potential privatisation of the court system has provoked fears of the erosion of the independence of the courts, leaving it open to influence from interested private providers.
Francesca Kaye, the president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, commented: "While the proposals seem not to affect the judiciary, they belie a naive understanding of how our courts work. As a result of changes in functions and cuts, many senior court staff take on quasi-judicial functions on a daily basis.
"Under proposals as seen, these people will be working for private companies, eroding their current independence and putting the integrity of the court system at risk. There is real scope for conflict of interest here."
Chris Grayling, who was appointed justice secretary last September, has upset many within the legal profession with his cost-cutting plans, with legal aid cuts in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill expected to save roughly £350m a year, while the closure of around 100 courts is expected to be announced shortly.
A Bar Council spokesperson said: "The administration of justice is essential to our democratic society. It must be properly managed by Government in the public interest, not run by private companies acting in their shareholders' best interests. Whilst efficiency is important, justice, like health, cannot always be measured simply by cost."
The news comes after Grayling told Parliament this March that his department was exploring proposals for the "reform of the resourcing and administration of our courts and tribunals".
Grayling said: "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.
"I also want to ensure that those who litigate in our courts 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."
"I have discussed these ideas in outline with the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals and will continue to work closely with the judiciary as to the detail of these reforms, as well as work with the relevant Parliamentary Committees."
This weekend Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne revealed he has reached an agreement with a number of government departments, including the MoJ, regarding budget cuts of between 8%-10% for his upcoming spending review, which is expected next month.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLatAm Moves: DLA Piper Chile, Brazil’s Demarest Build Out Disputes Muscle
Kingsley Napley and Lord Pannick Spearhead Private Schools' Challenge to Government VAT Policy
Spain Loses Appeal as London Court Rejects Claim of Immunity in €101 Million Arbitral Award Enforcement
Jones Day Expands European Footprint with Global Disputes Partner in Madrid
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250