More on KentOnline
More on KentOnline
A worrying trend is creeping into the justice system whereby corners are being cut to speed things along, writes KentOnline court reporter Julia Roberts…
The delays in the justice system are well-known and well-documented, and anyone reading about them would think our courts are on a go-slow.
Immense efforts are however being made to reduce the backlog and at times it can feel like the wheels of justice are spinning as everyone juggles case after case.
As someone once famously said, there's a need for speed! But while progress is being made, it would seem a worrying trend is creeping in whereby us reporters are left feeling a little short-changed.
For journalists covering the courts, the attention is very much in the details. We need to know, at the very least, who, what, when, where, why and how.
Much of this is often provided by the prosecution in their opening of the facts. Mitigation that comes from the defence side always adds to a story, and then finally the judge may throw in some extra information in his or her sentencing remarks.
But of late it has started to feel that as the courts do all they can to beat the backlog and save time wherever possible the detail is being cut short.
Take the case recently of a man who led police on a 140mph chase from Cobham, near Gravesend. The judge wanted to know what he described as the 'fundamental' information of such an offence — the distance over which the pursuit persisted and the length of time it lasted.
“Cutting the backlog should not mean cutting corners — and certainly not at the expense of open justice…”
We knew when it started and where the defendant's car was found abandoned more than four hours later. But not where police had lost sight of the vehicle and given up the chase.
Unfortunately, the prosecutor drew a blank. Neither of the officers involved had included such basic details in their statements nor had any dashcam or CCTV footage been uploaded to the court documents.
The judge remarked that several lawyers would have reviewed the case before it reached the sentencing stage yet no one had thought to provide the evidence. Was that just an oversight, a lack of judgement? Or was it lack of time or resources for preparing the case for court?
Regardless of the missing facts, the hearing went ahead and the offender was jailed for 12 months. But it had rightly left the judge — and court reporter — wanting to know more.
That is often the case too when a judge presides over a jam-packed court with case after case.
They may decide to circumvent the usual practice of hearing from both prosecution and defence counsel in favour of announcing they have read the court papers (digitalised and to which the media have no access rights) and will, after minimal discussion, go straight to sentence. This may save time, but it doesn't save the court reporter from throwing their pen down on their notebook in exasperation.
This isn't just a whinge. The press, when in court, are meant to be told the who, what, when, where, why and how.
Cutting the backlog should not mean cutting corners — and certainly not at the expense of open justice.
Keep up to date with news from Kent’s crown and magistrates courts by signing up for our weekly In The Dock newsletter.
It arrives in email inboxes every Friday.
