However, in most commercial disputes, nothing could prevent the courts from working more or less as usual, and in fact, 85% of the usual cases of the business and property courts continued to operate in the first months of the pandemic, regardless of the disruptions caused. [12] Remote hearings require a high level of organisation and must be conducted in a certain way. Opinions on their level of satisfaction, in terms of advocacy, but also in terms of the close cooperation required, for example within legal teams, and the effective use of documents are divided. However, the courts have made it clear that these are hurdles to overcome and that the pandemic itself is no reason to delay hearings. There may be problems with individual witnesses, especially if they protect themselves, but even then, the parties should consider whether their testimony is really necessary for their case and whether less testimony can be used overall. Even if one party is disadvantaged by these practical limitations, the courts will consider whether other parties are equally disadvantaged and will be satisfied if everyone is disadvantaged in much the same way, especially if they have roughly equal resources to prepare for trial. [13] Periodic Index: The Index of Legal Journals, part of the Journals collection on Westlaw UK, includes approximately 1,000 legal journals and dates back to 1986. The Lexis Library`s index of journals®includes more than 500 journals and dates back to 1995. The Index to Legal Periodicals, an American database, covers the most academic British legal journals well.
Future prospects So what will happen in the future? A functioning legal system is essential to promote the rule of law. Everyone, not just the rich and powerful, should have access to the legal system. The reality is that the rich and powerful will be able to continue to hire lawyers and take legal action more or less as before. It is the less fortunate that must be kept in mind. I propose here a number of developments that, if developed vigorously and imaginatively, could ensure that ordinary people can have access to justice – in fact, their access could be improved. It will not be easy. This will require strong leadership from policymakers and the judiciary; It may also be necessary to re-examine some of the decisions taken to see if their impact has been disproportionately negative – for example, the massive increase in legal costs. Improving access to justice 1 Information and communication technologies.
While practitioners` investment in ICT has been huge and has significantly changed the way lawyers work, investment in information technology in courts and tribunals has been pathetically slow. A much-vaunted introduction of technological innovations into the courts is currently underway, but – compared to developments in other sectors of the economy – the courts are still seriously lagging behind. At present, the focus appears to be on presenting IT to the courts so that files can be uploaded electronically. While this helps improve efficiency – files should be harder to lose – it`s a very limited result. The use of information technology could go much further to improve access to justice. There are already much more interesting examples of the extremely effective use of technology that allows people to bring cases online, upload evidence and have it processed by phone or remotely via videoconference: dispute resolution procedures adopted by the financial services mediator and parking judges are the most frequently cited examples. While there are categories of civil proceedings, particularly pecuniary claims and property claims, that can be initiated online, these are very modest examples of what could be developed by creating portals that structure the information that must be provided by the parties to the dispute so that decisions can be made by an independent judge or assessor. The use of IT has changed the way consumer services are delivered or even government services. On the other hand, the use of computers in the legal system is far behind.
There is no reason why information technology should not be developed to improve access to justice by allowing more people to conduct their own disputes and use other court services by filing applications online. It may well be that the courts need to establish special advisors who can assist the public in completing such forms. In addition to using IT to create files containing information needed to resolve disputes, IT could also often be used to create “virtual” courts or tribunals where parties could communicate with the judge online or by telephone. instead of having to be present in front of him. I am not saying that it is appropriate in all cases; But there is no reason why more common cases can be treated this way. The imaginative use of information technology could also allow for a more flexible use of specialized justice. For example, judges with experience in housing law could remotely determine cases without the need for a housing specialist in each court. 2. Obligation to provide after-sales services. It is a cliché that “delayed justice is deprived of justice.” While active case management – which was introduced after Lord Woolf`s civil justice reforms and has now been introduced into the criminal justice system – has reduced delays, the courts and tribunals service is not fully meeting the service standards that the public should expect. The Department of Justice website proudly announces that a minor lawsuit is usually decided within 30 weeks.
Is this something to brag about? Other more complex cases take much longer. Active case management helped. But much remains to be done. Strong leadership of the judiciary, combined with the imaginative use of ICTs proposed in the last paragraph, should enable the judicial service to provide a much more efficient and faster service than is currently offered. It may also be necessary to take into account the hours at which the courts meet. There is a lot of discussion about doctors offering a 7 days a week service. If you don`t go that far, how about the Saturday morning hearings? Parking referees already offer this. 3. More specialized courts. Surprisingly, the creation of the judicial service did not give rise to a serious discussion about whether non-criminal courts should become more specialized.
The traditional view is that courts should generally be generalist and not specialized. It is up to the lawyers who appear before the courts to inform the judges of the law to be applied in the particular case. From the judges` point of view, this means that they have a variety of works that interest them. But is this the best way to organize the judiciary? Let`s look at the current position. • All courts have specialized jurisdiction with specially trained judges in the relevant field – social security, employment, immigration, family allowances, etc. • The family court works with specially trained judges. • For commercial disputes, there is a range of specialized jurisdictions, for example, technology and construction, patents, admiralty, business, trade.
