A Little Local Practice

“Local Practice” used to be a term issued with a sneer by London counsel, lording it about how parochial sticks-based courts were (in truth I may be guilty of muttering it under my breath myself occasionally when I appear in an unfamiliar court that appears to have had an article 6 bypass).

However, Local Practice is positively de rigeur these days. In my neck of the woods we are struggling to maintain our composure in the face of three distinctly distinct local approaches. My head is spinning with guidance and protocols and emailed admonitions, pleas and explanations of new rules.

In Bristol, where (as one newcomer recently observed) “They don’t really do IRH’s do they?”, practitioners have received an emailed “Exhortation” from the DFJ. At least it is in the form of a request for cooperation rather than a demand or a pre-emptive criticism. And it is admirable in its 2 page brevity. This and other requests for help and joint working in Bristol cases have resulted in courteous exchanges of emails between HMCTS and local practitioners, resulting in finessing of the guidance to make it more workable for all. Collaboration gotta be good. Bristol’s “Exhortation” is a sort of judicial poetry, the “Not Waving but Drowning” of local PDs. It made us feel wanted and I think in Bristol practitioners work together to try our best to achieve good and just outcomes whilst minimising delay. Less good was the communication about secure email, which I blogged about before and which has still not resulted in any workable system and has been largely ignored because its impracticalities have neither been thought through nor addressed by HMCTS, and the necessary changes have not been made by most practitioners. Its stuck in a chicken and egg feedback loop (or something). Although I’m a fan of the comparatively flexible Bristol approach to case management, it has to be acknowledged that average care case duration in Bristol has not been great (although there are no doubt many drivers of those stats including the fact that historically Bristol has suffered particular CAFCASS difficulties). Continue Reading…

Family Justice Modernisation Programme Update No. Nine and Three Quarters

This press release just in from Mr Justice Schrodinger, Family Justice Modernisator:

Family Justice Modernisation Programme Update No 9 3/4 

I am pleased to announce that, in furtherance of the prime objective of efficiency and pace, all care cases issued after 1 January 2013 will be cascaded through the new algorithmic family justice hyper-rationalisation drive, which we have designed and constructed notwithstanding our budget of nil resources, reducing staff and technically obsolete IT estate. The system depends upon a simple scoring system, which has been developed with input from magistrates, with their unique insights and experience, and who are best placed to identify the key characteristics of families on the ground.

All public law cases entering into the system will be scored according to the following criteria before being allocated to one of three tracks, each with its own traffic light (to assist the understanding of the self represented litigant) : GREEN – proceed directly to adoption, AMBER – conduct perfunctory assessment and proceed to adoption in no longer than 26 weeks, and RED – cases where, as a result of failures in legal representation and filibustering, more than 27 weeks are required in order to achieve outcomes. Red light cases will be diverted to the newly constituted Muggle Tribunal, and parents will be able to access comprehensive legal guidance through an automated advice guide available at public library or post office internet consoles.

The system is designed to be simple to apply and understand, avoiding the need for complicated regulations, statutory guidance or the exercise of discretion. Any case scoring 20 or more will be allocated to the amber track. Any case scoring 30 or more to green. Cases scoring below 20 (if any) will be allocated to the red track. Continue Reading…

On a Rydering to Nothing

I don’t know what that post title means but I’m running out of Ryder related puns. And I’m functioning in a haze of lemsip and Haagen Dazs, and my brain is fried from straining to follow Alistair Macdonald QC dismantle the paramountcy principle whilst running a slight fever. Gosh, the ALC Conference has been fun but I’m a bit dun in now and a lot more hoarse than I was before delivering 2 workshops on litigants in person self-represented litigants. *Croak*

Despite the meandering opening, this post is just about Mr Justice Ryder’s speech this morning. I thought it would be easier to glue all my contemporaneous tweets together using the wonder of Storify, than to type them all out again. You can see those below.

I’ve heard the Ryder roadshow before and there are nuanced shifts each time I hear it. Today there were a couple of significant remarks which I hope I have accurately recorded / summarised as best one can in 140 character bites. I think its worth highlighting those, particularly in view of the minor controversy over the minor controversy arising from the (mis)quoting of Mr Justice Ryder at the NAGALRO Conference, which I blogged about here.

So. The highlights (and I do paraphrase here): Continue Reading…