Law Society
welcomes prospect of faster justice for families and
children
The Law Society today
said radical and sustained change to the family justice system
could not come soon enough, in response to the most comprehensive
and important review of family justice since 1989. The Society was
responding to the Final report of the Norgrove review of Family
Justice, published today.
Law Society Chief
Executive Desmond Hudson said:
'Children are at the
heart of family justice and their welfare should be paramount.
Today's delays in public law cases amount to a national disgrace -
many children in particular are being failed by the system. The
report's recommendations will need study and action by all parts of
the system - judges, lawyers, social workers, guardians and by the
Government too, because many of these changes will need
resourcing. Even in this straightened times, the Government has to
find the money.
'Legal aid cuts will
lead to more people going to court unrepresented, and family courts
slowing down even further. More people will have completely
unrealistic expectations of the process because they haven't had a
family solicitor's advice.
'The report's overall
aims should attract wide ranging support. We share its recognition
of the need for radical and lasting change within family
justice.
'Despite the huge
commitment shown by many of those working in family justice, the
system is failing. Cases are taking too long, causing harm to
children and families.'
Detail
The Family Justice
Review (also known as the Norgrove Review) final report covers
three main areas - public law (taking children into care), private
law (separation, divorce, contact and residence) and the creation
of a Family Justice Service. The Government's response is
expected around the end of the year.
Public
law
In 1991, when the
Children Act 1989 came into force, it was expected that care
proceedings would take on average 12 weeks for the courts to deal
with. At the time of publication of the review's interim
report in March, the average care and supervision case took 53
weeks: this has since increased to 56 weeks. These delays are
affecting 20,000 children. The review calls for a statutory
six month limit on care and supervision proceedings, to be extended
by the judge in only exceptional circumstances:
Desmond Hudson
said:
'To effectively halve
the time which cases take now will require additional resources -
more court time and more judges' time. It will also require
more time from family solicitors, but that is under threat from
cuts in legal aid fees and scope. We welcome the report's
recommendation that the MoJ and the Legal Services Commission
should monitor the impact of the reforms carefully, because the
supply of properly qualified family lawyers is vital to the
protection of children.
'The review panel
praised the Law Society's accreditation scheme for family
solicitors.”
In response to other
public law recommendations:
The Law Society welcomes
the recommendation to retain the tandem model which provides
children in proceedings with representation through both a
solicitor and an experienced social worker (known as a guardian).
The tandem model is an important safeguard and, as the report
recommends, should be retained with resources carefully
prioritised and allocated.
The Law Society also
welcomes the recommendation to remove charges to local authorities
for public law applications and to local authorities and Cafcass
for police checks in public and private law cases, as an
unnecessary waste of scarce resources.
Private
law
Delay also remains an
issue in private law, with the average case duration of 32 weeks in
2010. Around 90% of separating and divorcing couples agree
arrangements for their children without going to court. The
10% who do go to court are inevitably the most intractable and
bitter disputes about 'contact' and 'residence', terms which the
review says should be discarded in favour of the promotion of
Parenting Agreements.
Desmond Hudson
said:
- 'Litigation should be
regarded as a last resort. Most cases settle prior to court and
family solicitors play a significant role in negotiating
out-of-court settlements. Cuts in legal aid will mean that more
couples will go to court and represent themselves, without any
understanding of the process or with unrealistic expectations about
the outcome.'
The report calls for
greater diversion of cases from the courts through increased use of
family mediation to reach parenting agreements.
The Law Society agrees
that family mediators should be required to meet high standards -
currently there are no standards for privately-funded family
mediation, although there are for mediation paid for under legal
aid.
The Family Justice
Service
The report calls for
greater strategic leadership and co-ordination of the
disparate components of family justice through the creation
of a family justice service overseen by a Board.
The review also call for
a single 'family court' (to replace the three tiers of magistrate,
county and high courts) and for greater judicial continuity in both
private and public law cases.
Desmond Hudson
said:
“Proposals which
should lead to greater leadership, direction and
co-ordination within the
family justice service deserve our support, but institutional
change can be expensive and time consuming and should not hold up
change unnecessarily.'
The Law Society supports
the proposal to create a single family court with specialist judges
who are able to commit to continuity, which is essential to better
case management and faster justice.
Implementation
The report quotes the
Law Society's earlier submission to the review:
The proposals are
ambitious and they deserve resourcing accordingly: half measures
will not succeed, and the opportunity will be lost. It is better
that reform is planned and implemented properly, than change
introduced piecemeal and quickly.
It is vital that these
changes are properly planned and resourced.
The Law Society looks
forward to playing its part in working with stakeholders to achieve
change, and we plan to host a series of multi-agency events and
discussions in the new year, prior to legislation being introduced
by the MoJ in May 2012.
Ends
Notes to
Editors:
Contact: Catherine Reed,
The Law Society
+44 (0)20 7320
5902