On Monday the 12th of August 2019 I attended Cambridge Magistrates’ court to observe proceedings, with a view to reporting on them if anything newsworthy took place.
I was not able to obtain information which I understand I was entitled to and which I felt I needed both to decide which cases to observe and to ensure any reports were full and accurate.
The information I was not able to obtain is that generally described as the “full” court list (as opposed to the “noticeboard” list).
My understanding is the full list contains information on defendants such as their ages / dates of birth and addresses – which enable reports to unambiguously identify individuals in question and avoid defaming someone else with the same name. The full list in my experience also includes details of alleged offences, this enables reporting accurately on allegations and making decisions on which cases to observe.
I was able to speak to a court clerk who stated they were not surprised that I had not been provided with a copy of the court list. They suggested that the information requested would only be provided if a decision to release it was made, and that decision would depend on my providing my identity and who I am. I cited the law, Rule 5.8 of the Criminal Procedure Rules and stated my understanding that in the case of, for example, details of “each alleged offence and any plea entered” should be provided to the public on request, and the provision of such information ought not be subject to a decision being taken as to if to release it, or not, in response to a request.
Without easy access to the full court list our courts are not in my view effectively operating in public. The doors being technically open for anyone to walk in don’t provide for public justice if its not possible to find out information on cases which are scheduled, so people can choose which cases they are interested in observing, or find out if, and when, a case they want to observe is due to be heard.
I think we need an effective, public, open, local justice system in order to tackle many of our society’s problems. Deterrence, and justice, is enhanced by the public operation of our courts. Tackling this problem and getting our courts operating openly is in my view key to making our society safer and fairer.
Full Details of What Happened
Over a number of weeks I considered attending my local magistates’ court to observe, and report on, a case which had been mentioned in the local press. I thought carefully about if it was something I was prepared to do, and how I would approach attending and reporting.
I sought to do all I could to ensure my attendance went smoothly.
I decided to take nothing with me other than a folder containing a blank notebook, and paper, a copy of Rule 5.8 of the Criminal Procedure Rules, some cash, my keys, and a packet of tissues. I didn’t want to take journalistic notes in case they were searched, I didn’t want to take electronic devices such as a phone in-case I was accused of breaching a rule by having them, or having them be held by security.
I also decided to wear a suit. I am aware that some people often make decisions based on appearance and it appears to me that the justice system is a part of a society which is disjointed from wider society and perhaps still judges people based on what they look like – something I think wider civilised society is moving away from. I thought the establishment might react more pleasantly to, or be less panicked by the presence of, someone who was dressed like them.
The court building opened at 9am. I was outside at 0910, I thought that would be a good time to go in. Early, promptly, but not right on the dot of the opening time. My expectation at the time was I’d go in, find out when cases I was interested in were scheduled for, and come back out before returning, later to observe them.
I approached the court building, entered and went through the security procedure. I placed my keys and folder in a tray, and walked through an arch. I was asked to stand with my arms up as I was scanned with a probe, presumably a metal detector. I then picked up my items. I was asked for my name by the security staff. I said only that I was a member of the public and they let me though.
I suspect the security staff were asking for people’s names to be helpful and to direct them to the right court but it would be best if they explained the purpose of their question and informed people if they had to answer it.
I climbed the stairs to the courts which are on the third floor of the building. The stairway is narrow and foreboding. I am not claustrophobic but it felt like an enclosed and unsafe place, rather like some staircases at multi-story car parks. There appeared to be only be one way in and out of the labyrinthine complex for the public though green emergency exit signs indicate the presence of other routes which would presumably, hopefully, become accessible to all in an emergency.
On the level containing the court rooms there was a noticeboard, there were A4 lists posted under “Court 1 and Court 3”. These lists contained only a time, the defendants name, an unlabelled column perhaps showing who was prosecuting (generally the police), and a case number.
I found that a case I was interested observing was listed as the second case in court number 3, with three cases all listed for 10am being listed for that court.
Someone approached the list for court one and crossed out a line on the list for court one as I was watching.
At this point it was 0920. There were “court in session” lights on outside courts one and three, but there didn’t appear to be anyone inside.
I decided to wait with a view to asking an usher for a copy of the full court listing.
I noted a sign stating: “Use of mobile phones is prohibited in all hearing rooms. CT1 October 2018”.
I overheard a security officer advise someone else that the ushers would start work in “about a quarter of an hour”, that would be somewhere around 0940. There was a sign on the noticeboard containing the so called “noticeboard lists” that ushers are available from 0930.
I read some of the other signs which included: “Hot drinks may not be brought into the court room or hearing room”, “Food many not be consumed in the court room or hearing room”, “CCTV images are recorded” and “it is an offence to take photographs, record video clips or make unauthorised audio recordings anywayanywhere in the hearing centre … if you are found to be in breach of this the matter will be referred to a judge and may result in legal action”.
The security officer advised another member of the public apparently present to observe that ushers would come into court at 0945 and at that point they could go in, and turn to the right, to go into the public gallery. The security guard [perhaps being asked if cases from over the weekend were being dealt with] also said: “we don’t open on a Saturday so anything that does [need to be dealt with on Saturday] goes to Huntington”.
I sat and waited and finalised my plan to first ask for a copy of the full court list, and then if that wasn’t successful, to seek a copy of “each alleged offence and any plea entered” for each case due before the court I was intending to observe – court 3.
An usher eventually entered the court and came in and out a few times. While the usher was standing outside the court, and I was sitting in the waiting area outside I asked if I could have a copy of the full court list. The initial answer was: ~”No. We don’t print it off. I need to get everyone booked in”. I was then asked who I was, to which I responded just that I was a member of the public.
The usher was wearing a black gown (which is how I recognised them as an usher), they were wearing a badge with no name on it. I asked who they were and I was told merely: “Julie”.
A fellow member of the public who had overheard my request asked if I was seeking a ~”a full list showing what was going on”, I said “yes”, I was.. and they noted “that would be useful”, I said: “we should get it, I might get a copy shortly”.
I waited outside as various people walked in and out of the court, apparently members of the public, defendants, lawyers, court staff etc.
I decided to wait outside until just before the court session was due to start.
The usher returned to me sitting outside and said: “I’ve consulted our head legal advisor”. “It’s all confidential I don’t know if I can…”. “It’s all digital now, we don’t print it out”.
At this point I had only asked for a copy of the full court list.
I now rephrased my request to ask for specific information. I asked if I could have:
“details of each alleged offence and any plea entered, for court three here this morning”.
Apparently reading from their paper copy of the full court list the usher noted the information published on the noticeboard list (the defendant’s names) then very briefly stated:
- An Assault
- Possession of a controlled drug
- Fraud
I asked if I could have any further details of the alleged offences and was told no.
I suspect there was further information to which I was entitled.
I asked for details of the pleas entered and was told “they’re trials, they’re all ‘not guilty’”.
(It would be possible for there to be trials if someone had pleaded not-guilty to some, but not all offences they were alleged to have committed).
I sat down again and waited. I decided to ask to make a request for the full court listing information to the clerk at the start of case 2. I thought case 2 would be of significant local interest and there would be a lot of observers and reporters present, so making it feel safer and more comfortable to make a request where I wasn’t the only “outsider” in in the room.
I entered the court pretty much exactly at 10am. The usher was telling the clerk if witnesses were present or not for the case listed as case 1. A defence solicitor asked the clerk and usher about their views on his fitness regime and the if running around the city with heavy bags and up the stairs was sufficient aerobic exercise. They looked oddly at him and ignored him.
My one fellow member of the public in the public seating asked if I had obtained a copy of the court list. I said: “no”.
I sat and drafted what I wanted to say to the clerk, I planned to ask for information on “each alleged offence and any plea entered”, and to note I had requested the information from the usher but had not received what I expected. I thought if I was making a request I would also request other information to which I was entitled including the identity of the prosecution and defence reps and the identities of the judge/magistrates so planned to ask for that too.
As I sat and waited the prosecutor answered a phone call in the court/hearing room and wasn’t challenged – though he did promptly leave presumably to carry on a conversation elsewhere.
There were around 14 seats in the public gallery (an area at the back of the room, at the same level as the floor of the court). The seats were in two rows, I took the seat nearest the door on the front row. I later found out this was near to, and in-front of, the ushers’ seat.
The magistrates came in a 10:05. A ~”court rise” order was given and I stood up. (Apparently not doing so risks a spell in the cells for contempt!) In this case I was happy to stand to show respect to our system of justice and the office of magistrate. (I have previously been in a court room which had been kept waiting for a very long time for magistrates to return after their lunch break and I certainly felt, and could sense others feeling, less deferential when asking to stand on that occasion).
Case two was called. This came as a bit of a surprise to me, but I had heard discussion about a slight delay in case one so it wasn’t entirely unexpected.
After the case had been called but before it began I asked if I could make a representation to the clerk. The usher sighed but did appear to rely my request to the clerk who appeared to ignore it. I was intending to request the basic court listing information, and other information I was entitled to as I had planned.
I will write a separate report on the substance of the case 2.
Case 2 was rapidly dispatched in under ten minutes, including a few minutes of deliberation, in-court, by the magistrates.
After the case was over I quietly and politely asked the usher for the names of the magistrates.
The usher again sighed, more dramatically this time, and pointed at me (I’ve experienced being pointed at in this way by public officials before, I don’t understand the behaviour, in retrospect in this case it may have been to indicate “I will return to you here with the information you have requested”). The usher didn’t respond verbally in any way to my request straight away but walked off and dealt with other matters. I decided to wait for ten minutes to see if the usher came back with the names.
Proceedings in another case then took place briefly. I won’t say anything more because what can be reported about a case before it reaches trial is strictly limited.
After just a few minutes the magistrates retired and I was left sitting in the court room with just the other member of the public and the clerk, and someone coming in-and out to a desk towards the back – I suspected they were probation service rep.
I decided at that point I would not seek to speak to the clerk directly, but to only go via the usher.
The usher returned and gave me the names of the magistrates orally and very quickly, they were, phonetically:
- Sarah Vallance-Good
- Jacob Power
- Kim Clegg
I repeated them to seek confirmation that the information had been correctly transmitted but the usher walked off and offered no confirmation.
In retrospect when I was home later I wondered if I could have requested a “reasonable adjustment” under the Equalities Act as even though I don’t think I have any particular problem receiving information orally generally the manner in which it was delivered was at the edge of what I was capable of dealing with.
At this point the clerk spoke up. The clerk, was in court, “holding court”, but without magistrates or a judge present. The clerk addressed me and said “Who are you?”. I said: “I am a member of the public observing the court today”. The clerk announced: “I am surprised you got the names of the magistrates if you are not a member of the press”.
I stayed silent for a few moments, in the silent court considering what, if anything to do next.
I asked the clerk if I could speak to him, he said yes. I relayed my attempt to get a copy of the full list that morning and told him what had happened. The clerk stated that he wasn’t surprised that I wasn’t provided with the full list. I explained that I understood I was entitled to the information I had asked for under the criminal procedure rules. The clerk responded: “which rule?”. “5.8” I replied. Consulting a copy of the rules and adding “5.8(6)(b) and (f) for example”. The clerk said he thought a decision would need to be made on if to release information or not, and that decision would depend on who I was. I responded to say that wasn’t my understanding and that I thought the information I requested should be available to anyone on who asked for it. The clerk expressed a view that as the cases were being heard in open court that brought sufficient openness.
I asked the clerk for his name, he said he was Jeremy Moss, and he added “I have done this for a very long time”.
Mr Moss added that I was clearly “doing something” and he noted aloud that I was “writing things down”.
I thanked the clerk and said I would pursue the matter elsewhere.
After a period contemplating if I could do any other useful reporting without the court list I left the courtroom shortly afterwards.
I’ve now written up what happened and I intend to share my experience and seek comments. I then plan to seek to draw what happened to the attention of the CEO of the courts service (who has engaged with me previously on matters of openness in our courts via the @CEOofHMCTS) and to my MP.
I have only ever once before in my life ever raised a formal complaint about anything (that related to the way a Parliamentary committee published evidence I had submitted in a garbled format). I am though considering that if others agree with my interpretation of the criminal procedure rules and that I should have been given access to the information I requested I may make a complaint in this case, or at least in some way pursue a response.
I really think open justice is critical for a fair society and I think it has a role in preventing crime and making our society safer. I think action on this point could save lives and prevent huge amounts of upset and distress.
I have been intending for some time to make a Freedom of Information request asking for information on the arrangements in-place for distributing copies of the full court lists for hearings at Cambridge Magistrates’ Court. I would have preferred if I had been able to do this in advance of attending to observe a case but a case I was interested in came up. I may make such a request an link to it in the comments.
Police, Crime [Fire] and Justice Commissioners
I would like to see Police and Crime Commissioners become Police, Crime, and Justice Commissioners and take an interest in wider criminal justice strategy. I am aware there is a good argument against this based on concern about maintaining independence of the judicial and policing systems but I don’t think that would be put at risk by having a local elected representative representing the public to the judiciary and the courts service. Just as with their policing role I wouldn’t expect commissioners to get involved in operational matters or individual cases but they could take local decisions as they do in policing on on strategic policy matters, communications and estates.
(I don’t actually support Police and Crime Commissioners, I’d rather their role be taken-on by a committee of councillors. Such a committee could take a broad view of the criminal justice system.)
49 responses to “Basic Failure of Open Justice at Cambridge Magistrates’ Court”
I too have had problems getting the listings from my local Magistrates Court (Wirral).
I went to the offices and asked the staff – manager had told that this information wouldn’t be released. I was told I would only get it if I came in for an appointment to be vetted as a journalist.
But here is a link to the guide for HMCTS staff on the media and courts register and lists.
In summary though it had to be provided free of charge, made available to the media on request and contain the defendant’s name, age, alleged offence and address.
There’s more about sharing with local newspapers here, but it does state in that “take steps to satisfy themselves that they are providing information to a genuine journalist or agent. (Paper copies must be collected in person by a representative from the newspaper who must produce ID such as a UK Press Card Authority or a letter from the editor authorising collection”
So in other words if you don’t have a press card you need a letter from your editor.
I hope the above is helpful and yes HMCTS staff do go a bit overboard sometimes with the information.
On the plus side – the Crown Court listings are available through Courtserve which saves all this bother!
It appears that the magistrates and prosecutors names may have been provided to another reporter in court
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/raymond-brown-cambridge-news-court-16741739
It may be that the reporter made a request by email and got a better response than I did with an oral request to the usher. The usher didn’t suggest I make a request by email.
If I do make a complaint I will suggest how others’ requests for the same, or similar, information was dealt with.
I have recalled that when the usher returned to me as I was sitting outside the court and told me
“I’ve consulted our head legal advisor”. “It’s all confidential I don’t know if I can…”. “It’s all digital now, we don’t print it out”.
there was another usher standing nearby.
I didn’t realise that might be relevant, they appeared to perhaps be waiting to talk to the usher. In retrospect it struck me a couple of days later that this second usher might have been dispatched to observe the interaction.
I have carefully considered if I should pursue what happened via a complaint.
A number of people, including some with relevant expertise, have now read my account and none have told me my interpretation is wrong – and people are generally quick to speak up if something is wrong.
Access to court listing information is fundamental to openness in our court system, and openness in our court system is a vital pillar of our justice system and indeed our society. This is a very important subject.
I have drafted the following complaint for comment:
Thank you for giving such a complete account of your recent visit to Cambridge Magistrates’ Court.
It has always been a bit of a bugbear of mine how some interested members of the public are viewed with suspicion by a minority of court staff. We should be encouraging members of the public to visit our courts and take a keener interest in the provision of local justice.
It is perfectly acceptable for anyone to sit at the back of open court and take a note of proceedings. They should only be challenged if it is obvious they are up to no good – for example, taking notes to help witnesses about to give evidence at trial. I always think it is safer for any member of the public who wishes to take notes to mention it to the usher, so there is no possibility of confusion or embarrassment later on. Of course any reporting restriction must be strictly adhered to.
The HMCTS legal staff will obviously know and understand the rules about providing full court lists to members of the public. Bona fide journalists are entitled to view these in advance of the relevant hearing, which allows them to cherry pick cases of particular interest.
Providing the full lists to members of the public could be problematic because they do sometimes contain sensitive information – e.g. the names of victims in domestic/sexual assault cases.
>The HMCTS legal staff will obviously know and understand the rules about providing full court lists to members of the public. Bona fide journalists are entitled to view these in advance of the relevant hearing, which allows them to cherry pick cases of particular interest.
My understanding is it is only in respect of access to family courts that our courts system seeks to regulate which journalists can effectively report on proceedings. The law on access to information about upcoming cases enables anyone to access information about upcoming cases. The state should not operate a system where only its selected and favoured journalists can report effectively on what happens in court.
>Providing the full lists to members of the public could be problematic because they do sometimes contain sensitive information – e.g. the names of victims in domestic/sexual assault cases.
That information is available to those who are observing in court and there are laws preventing its publication. Court lists should be provided to people with notes on any reporting restrictions – either general reporting restrictions which apply – or those which have been ordered in relation to a specific case. It is up to individuals what they do with the information received and they can be held to account if they there is an allegation they have breached the law with subsequent actions.
I would like to see court lists, appropriately redacted for publication, made available to all online.
>The HMCTS legal staff will obviously know and understand the rules about providing full court lists
I don’t share that confidence, and I think my experience shows that at least in Cambridge Magistrates’ Court staff are not aware of the public’s rights to information.
I have received a number of comments on my proposed complaint.
One criticism is that it is not concise and specific. This is a fair and reasonable point and I have considered complaining only about the most concerning particular element, for example that when I requested details of the alleged offence for case 3 in court 3 that morning the response I got was the one word “fraud” when I expected to be provided with the full details of the alleged offence as I would have expected them to appear on the full court list.
I have decided not to limit my complaint in this way for a number of reasons. One is that I may be accused of omitting relevant context from my complaint, so I think it is best to present the entirety of what happened, another is I was seriously concerned about the attitude of the usher and the clerk’s comments so I think it is reasonable to include those in my complaint too.
Another question raised is if this experience is the best one to raise a complaint in relation to, and if I should, for example, make a request in writing for a court listing information for a particular day and complain if it is refused. I have made such a request previously, and it was rejected. In that case I complained to the Information Commissioner on the grounds the material should have been released under the Freedom of Information Act. I think the ruling was wrong but was not prepared to expose myself to the risks of a costs award against me by appealing it to a tribunal.
In this case I have clear notes of what happened, and I was able to raise my concerns with a clerk so I think this is a case where I did everything I could to do the right thing, and I have good notes supporting my experience so I think it is a good case to base a complaint on.
Lastly I have considered if to add a line to my complaint asking when we can expect Cambridge Magistrates Court, and our courts more generally to openly publish informative but appropriately redacted court lists and registers online so we can have a truly open and transparent justice system. I think this would be a relevant opportunity to seek an update on progress towards this.
I am intending separately to make a Freedom of Information request to find out about the current arrangements for proactively releasing court listing and court register information relating to cases at Cambridge Magistrate’s court, including a list of bodies to which information is routinely sent and the selection criteria, if any, used to determine which case information they are sent. I am currently considering dealing with the complaint first, and then pursuing the FOI route for more information on current policy and practice that way.
The courts service’s online complaints system asks: “How were you affected?”.
I took some text from my original article to write: “I was not able to obtain information which I understand I was entitled to and which I felt I needed both to decide which cases to observe and to ensure any reports were full and accurate.
My understanding is the full list, which I requested but was not provided with, contains information on defendants such as their ages / dates of birth and addresses – which enable reports to unambiguously identify individuals in question and avoid defaming someone else with the same name. The full list in my experience also includes details of alleged offences which enables both reporting accurately on allegations and making decisions on which cases to observe.”
I have also added the request for an update on progress towards proactive online publication of court lists and registers.
I decide not to use the “resolver” service as it insisted on an physical address, which appears unnecessary.
I have submitted my complaint by email using the contact address provided on the Cambridge Magistrates’ Court page on the Government’s Court and tribunal finder website. I gave my email the subject line: “Complaint – Failure to Provide Information at Cambridge Magistrates’ Court”
I received an immediate autoresponse stating:
On Monday the 19th of August 2019 I received an acknowledgement:
On the 21st of August 2019 I received a response:
The response was polite which is excellent.
However I have still not received the information I was seeking and many of the issues I raised have not been addressed.
Stephen Reyes has stated that “the information within the rules was supplied” that I think is the key point to pursue further. I do not think that a one word response “fraud” complies with the requirement to provide “details of each alleged offence”, no basis for the conclusion that it was a sufficient response has been given.
It appears the practice in Cambridge Magistrate’s court, as confirmed by the response to my complaint, is at odds with the courts service’s guidance which states:
(The provision in the Criminal Procedure Rules 5.8(4) applies to the public and my interpretation of the guidance is that the information on the charge sheet or indictment (which I suspect is the same information about the offence as on the “full list”) is what should be provided under the Criminal Procedure Rules.
I want to focus on compliance with the law, not compliance with the court’s service’s own guidance though.
The statement:
>A full court list may contain information that should not be released due to reporting restrictions,
is worrying as it suggests Cambridge Magistrates’ Court will not release the full court list at all. The response to my complaint has not considered if further information from the complete court list was provided to others.
The courts service guidance states:
Information should be provided and advice given but it is not up to court staff to seek to enforce reporting restrictions.
The way my request to make an application to the court/clerk was handled was not addressed. Even if clerks have been reminded of the law.
The advice I sought in terms of making requests for information in the future has not been provided.
According to the courts service’s complaints procedure those unhappy with the initial response can ask for a review.
I will want to remember to ask that the response to any review is shared with those who were notified of the original complaint and the response.
I have submitted a request for a review:
On Thursday the 12th of September I received a response, the covering email of which stated:
And the attached response, which was marked “CONFIDENTIAL” stated:
I thought the “confidential” marking was inappropriate, it’s presence has made the decision to publish the response much harder than it otherwise would have been as I have to consider if publication amounts to a breach of confidence, and consider the risks associated with breaching a confidence.
I can’t see anything in the response which has the required character of confidence, I can’t see any unwarranted harm which could arise as a result of publication.
I will now comment, in line, on the response:
I’m not sure why the officer is saying sorry if the decision is the court officers did the right thing.
This statement doesn’t add anything, it merely sets out the legal position. It does not express a view on if the requests which I am complaining about were made “in accordance with the above”, my view is they clearly were.
It’s excellent that the principle that ” a court officer would be expected to clarify the spelling of any complicated/unusual or ambiguous name” has been agreed; it appears this element of my complaint has been upheld but there is nothing which gives me confidence procedures have changed and I would experience anything different in the future. There is no statement that the usher was wrong not to assist in ensuring a successful oral transmission of the information.
This is the key element of the response. The response is couched in abstract terms whereas the complaint related to three specific listings. I expected the response to consider if the information I had been provided in relation to the specific cases in question was appropriate.
I think this is a disingenuous comment as I made clear in my complaint that I was aware I was citing guidance relating to “reporters”. I wrote: “While this guidance is specific to “reporters” the requirement to provide information under rule Criminal Procedure Rules 5.8 relates to requests from any member of the public”.
That is a very clear statement on which I can base further campaigning. If the public can’t have access to the full court list then we don’t have open justice in Cambridge magistrate’s court.
I did not restrict my suggestion that in response to my complaint, “How any requests by others for some of the same information as I was seeking on the day were handled and if, and why, my requests were dealt with differently from others’” be considered.
I will appeal, to-date my concerns have only been raised within Cambridgeshire. There may well be a local issue which will only be addressed following a review by someone external to the local court staff. It is notable that despite my complaint having been made, and pursued, by e-mail only a postal address is given for the next stage review. I have found the customerinvestigations -at- hmcts.gsi.gov.uk address online on non-government sites, I suspect that may now be customerinvestigations -at- hmcts.gov.uk and I’ve asked WhatDoTheyKnow to reveal the address released in response to a FOI response.
It may of course be that the law on access to information from the courts isn’t strong enough and needs to be strengthened if that is the case I hope the way my request for information was dealt with will provide evidence to MPs that we need a stronger law to protect the basic principle of open justice.
I have drafted a request for a further review:
I submitted the complaint essentially as drafted above to.
On the 25th of September I followed this up writing:
My correspondence was promptly acknowledged once I requested an acknowledgment:
The email address for the Courts and Tribunal Service’s Customer Investigations Team is:
customerinvestigations@justice.gov.uk
I have received a final response to my complaint from the Courts and Tribunal Service.
Their central Customer Investigations Team responded to merely state:
There is no sign of the careful and detailed consideration and reasoned conclusion which I had hoped for.
I think this is a vitally important matter so I will write to my MP and ask them to refer the complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
I will post a full copy of the response from the Courts and Tribunal Service below and keep this thread up to date with progress.
The Courts and Tribunal Service’s final response stated:
I have written to my MP:
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s form asked a number of questions, these are my responses:
Briefly tell us what your complaint is about. Tell us what happened, when and who was involved.
I did not receive court listing information I believe I was entitled to under Rule 5.8 of the Criminal Procedure Rules when I requested it at Cambridge Magistrates’ Court on the 12th of August 2019. My request was made to an usher on duty outside court 3 at around 0940. The usher identified themselves only as “Julie”.
How have you, or the person you represent, been affected by what has happened?
The impacts are overwhelmingly societal rather than individual.
If we are able to take on your complaint, what are you hoping we can achieve?
Primarily I am seeking to ensure that if anyone makes a request for court listing information in the future they are promtly and politely provided with the information they are entitled to, taking a key step towards open justice in the UK.
Cambridge MP Daniel Zeichner has replied:
That’s an excellent prompt response.
Inexplicably the ombudsman is using switch.egress.com to send me emails about this referral. It’s not clear what benefit the use of this service provides over plain email as no password / key has been supplied via other means, all the information required to access the message is contained in the email they’ve sent me.
I now have to register with the switch.egress.com service to access their message.
Having jumped through the hoops required I have obtained the message, which was dated Thursday, October 31, 2019 10:12 AM:
I have received further correspondence. I have removed the caseworker’s name as I have a limited capacity for dealing with challenges at the moment, and the risks involved in activism are greater than usual.
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has written to me to say they have : “decided not to consider your complaint further; this is because we have seen no evidence that anything went seriously wrong”.
I had already made the case for the importance of open justice, citing Lady Hale: ““The principle of open justice is one of the most precious in our law. It is there to reassure the public and the parties that our courts are indeed doing justice according to law” in my correspondence so I don’t see what more I could have done to impress on the ombudsman that this was a serious matter.
The reference to “no evidence” is also troubling. As audio and visual recording is not permitted in the precincts of a court it is not permitted to collect evidence of how a request such as mine for a court list is responded to. Here there was evidence that on review the court, and the court and tribunal service centrally, took the view that it was reasonable for the full court listing not to have been provided on request.
The decision letter states:
This is bizarre and false. If I had been provided with the information I requested there would not have been a problem and I would not have complained!
The decision letter indicates that the ombudsman may agree with the idea that just because the doors of the courts are nominally open there is sufficient transparency. My view is this is not the case, it is not sufficient for the door to be open, you have to be able to find out what is going on in order to know which door to try and when.
Imagine if local councils didn’t publish agendas or notices of meetings, but simply said the public galleries in council chambers were always open!
This is not surprising result, it strengthens the case for improving the law both specifically on access to court lists and generally legislating to ensure we have open justice.
I think the decision reasoning focuses excessively on the requirements of the criminal procedure rules rather than the broader principle of open justice.
In the response letter the ombudsman has invited me to provide: “feedback about our service or decision”. While it appears any such feedback will not result necessarily in a reconsideration of the decision not to consider my complaint further I have decided to offer some comments in the hope they will lead to improvements in the service for others who make complaints in the future, and as they may result in improved reasoning, or reconsideration, in this case.
While above comment shows currently challenges obtaining court listing information extend to mainstream journalists I think one challenge in getting better access to lists is generally the media do obtain court listing information under the Protocol on sharing court lists, registers and documents with the media. Those who can access court lists easily may not understand, and report on the challenges faced by, those who cannot.
For open justice court lists (and registers) need to be accessible to all. Examples of those who might want access to court listing information include:
Further correspondence:
A response to my feedback has been provided:
There are a lot of words there but in essence:
The ombudsman appears to have given up on the bizarre “Egress switch” system, the latter two messages were sent by plain email.
A copy of the feedback form attached is available via the ombudsman’s website.
I am surprised that I have to write back again to request a review of the decision.
There are three substantive questions on the feedback form, along with, as is usual for a public body, lots of questions asking for things they already know, such as my name.
You have focused on the Criminal Procedure Rules rather than considering a breach of the wider principle of open justice.
You have interpreted the requirements in the Criminal Procedure Rules to provide, on request, information on “each alleged offence” unreasonably narrowly, and have failed to explain the rationale for the interpretation adopted. You have not shown consideration of the likely intent of the rules.
You have inaccurately claimed that I was provided with the information I requested. You have not shown an understanding of the nature of the information which was requested, but not supplied. (I would expect the full court listing would include details of the times, locations, and description of alleged offences, and for example information required to unambiguously identify the defendant(s) such as their date of birth and address.)
You have failed to consider the consequences of full court listing information not being freely available on request.
Consideration of the principle of open justice, and the consequences of full court listing information not being freely available on request may lead to a different conclusion on the seriousness of the failure to provide the full court listing information on request.
Interpreting the requirement in the Criminal Procedure Rules to provide, on request, information on “each alleged offence” more broadly, may lead to you upholding my complaint.
Considering the complaint in the context of a breach of the principle of open justice may lead to you upholding my complaint.
Understanding the nature of the information requested, but not supplied, will enable the substance of this complaint to be taken into account.
You could address the matters I have listed in response to question one; I hope that as a result of doing so my complaint would be upheld.
While I understand the ombudsman cannot directly change the policy of the Courts and Tribunal Service I hope that if this complaint is upheld that would prompt policy change so I and others would obtain court listing information on request promptly and easily in the future.
If the review concludes that a failure to provide full court listing information on request, in the context of my request, was acceptable that will I hope assist in making the case for changes to the law, and/or policy and practice so open justice can be (re)established.
Whatever the conclusion of the review I hope it will assist in progress towards a fairer, safer, society.
Mark Hanna, whose twitter bio states: “Co-author McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists, a senior teacher at Sheffield University’s Dept of Journalism Studies, chair of NCTJ media law exams board”, has endorsed my suggestion to add “a section on open justice to the definition of “the overriding objective” within both the criminal and civil procedure rules” saying it is a: “Good idea”.
Update:
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman have now issued their final decision.
My summary of their view is that they think its acceptable, given the current state of the law, for the courts service to withhold court lists from members of the public.
I have written to my MP in the hope that they will act and take this further:
Cambridge’s MP Daniel Zeichner has replied to me:
My MP Daniel Zeichner has written to another MP who is a justice minister:
I have noticed that the Application for summons or warrant for arrest for alleged offence under Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 section 1, CrimPR 7.2(6) form contains a section in which the “Alleged offence(s)” are requested and examples given are single words “(e.g. ‘theft’, ‘assault’, etc.)”
Further down the form there is a section requesting: “Details of the alleged offence(s)” which sets out:
As described there Criminal Procedure Rule 7.3 sets out what a “statement of the offence” must contain.
The reference to “each alleged offence” in rule 5.8 6 (b) which sets out what information the public are entitled to appears to correspond with the phrase “Alleged offence” on the form – perhaps that is where confusion has arisen – perhaps that in-part explains why single word descriptions of offences were considered sufficient information to provide on request. Perhaps the wording on the form has confused the courts service as to what information ought be released on request.
My view is the information available to the public should surely contain the same information as the “statement of the offence”. Perhaps MPs could have been clearer when setting the law, they could have used the same phrase in rule 7.3 and 5.8 of the criminal procedure rules and defined it once. The fact they did not do so could though be interpreted if different meanings were intended. I don’t think this is MPs’ fault though, I don’t think it could have been reasonably foreseeable that the courts service might try to describe offences in a single word rather than provide the public, on request, with the full statement of the offence. My understanding is the full court lists do contain the “details of the alleged offence(s)” / “statement of the offence(s)” and not just one word descriptions of the offence(s).
The Standard is reporting today:
My MP Daniel Zeichner has passed on the following letter from a minister:
I am considering what to do next, and have drafted this reply to my MP:
Another example of basic court listing information being refused:
A research report on access to courts for reporting during the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic has been published
https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/9655419
Some quotes relevant to this article:
[My note: not all reporters have press cards, press cards are a form of state regulation of journalists (though they are issued by non-state parties) and we shouldn’t rely on state authorised journalists for court reporting]
I have had a number of cases heard at cambridge magistrates court. Just recently found guilty in my absence and without the evidence of my private property that is still eing held by police and cps. Criminal
Please feel free to contact me.
Hi!
I’m doing a piece for the local newspaper on the dire state of the Magistrates – focussed on Cambridge and in the context of Magistrates’ unpreparedness for their increased sentencing powers.
Was wondering if you knew anyone I could speak to about this or if anyone on this forum with experience of the Courts would be willing to speak to me?