Lord Chancellor launches drive to improve Crown Court Performance

Date: 17 October 2001

A new drive to improve performance in the Crown Court was launched today by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, with the publication of the first Crown Court Annual Report.

The Report shows the performance of all 78 Crown Court centres in England and Wales against 8 key criteria - such as timeliness of cases and courtroom usage - for the financial year ending April 2001. It also includes comments from individual courts on the figures and highlights action being taken to drive up performance.

The Lord Chancellor said: 'The Crown Court receives over 70,000 cases for trial a year. The defendants being tried are charged with the most serious offences such as murder, manslaughter and rape. It is vital for the sake of everyone involved, particularly victims, witnesses and the defendant, that these cases are dealt with efficiently and effectively by the Court.

'The Government has taken action to streamline the system, to reduce delay, and to continue to improve the treatment of victims and witnesses. Last year I launched the Court Service's Crown Court Programme to speed-up justice, improve efficiency and provide better treatment for victims, witnesses and jurors and Lord Justice Auld has now reported to me with his recommendations for the organisation and operation of the criminal courts at every level.

'Courts must be open to the same public scrutiny as other Government services. We must do all we can to make them more open and transparent, bringing them closer to the communities they serve. People should look upon their local Crown Court centre as a public service in the same way they view hospitals or schools.

'Publication of an annual report for the Crown Court will provide the public with information they need to judge the performance of their local Crown Court centre. It has also highlighted good examples of action to drive up performance which can be replicated by other courts across the country, while allowing us to put the microscope on courts that are not performing so well.'

The eight performance criteria are:

• KPI3 (Timeliness) - the number of trials disposed of within 16 weeks + the number of sentences dealt with in 10 weeks + the number of appeals dealt with in 14 weeks all divided by the total number of trials, sentences and appeals disposed of. The Court Service target is 78% and performance across England and Wales at the end of the 2000/2001 financial year was 76%.
• Average waiting times - this is calculated using the waiting time in weeks for each hearing and dividing by the number of committals for trial disposed of. The Court Service target is 8 weeks for defendants in custody and 12 weeks for defendants on bail.
• Percentage of committals outstanding after 16 weeks - this is calculated by dividing the total number of trials outstanding by the number of committals outstanding after 16 weeks.
• Disposal rate - this is calculated by dividing the total number of cases disposed of (ie completed) divided by the total by the number of days sat by a court. For example, a court sitting for 20 days and disposing of 20 cases would have a disposal rate of one.
• Courtroom usage - this records the average number of hours sat in open court divided by the number of days sat including, for example, days when the defendant pleads guilty at the last minute, or witnesses fail to attend. It entirely excludes time spent by Judges carrying out necessary preparatory or interlocutory work in chambers. The Court Service target 4.37 hours.
• Cracked trial rate - a cracked trial is any case that is dealt with on the day a trial was scheduled to take place without the trial needing to go ahead. This includes cases where the defendant changes their plea to guilty, or pleads to a lesser charge on the day of the trial. It does not include cases where the defendant pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing before the court. It is calculated by dividing the number of cracked trials by the number of cases disposed of.
• Ineffective trial rate - an ineffective trial is a case that is unable to proceed to trial on the day the trial was due to commence. Reasons for ineffective trials may include witnesses or defendant not attending, and lack of available courtroom time. The ineffective trial rate is the number of ineffective trials divided by the number of cases listed for trial. As this records the number of listed cases that do not commence, it includes cases that subsequently have an effective hearing at a later date.
• Days jurors sit as a % of attendance and non-attendance - this is based on the number of days jurors sit divided by the sum of the total attendance days and the total non-attendance days. The Court Service target is 67%.

The comments on performance by each court and the initiatives being taken forward to improve performance are based on returns from Resident Judges and Court Managers at all Crown Court Centres as requested by Lord Justice Judge, the Senior Presiding Judge, and Ian Magee, the Chief Executive of the Court Service.

Ian Magee said: 'The Crown Court Annual Report will serve as a useful tool to drive up performance across all Crown Court centres, as well as providing the public with valuable information about how their local Court is performing.

'I am pleased the Crown Court is already doing well against the timeliness target which is the indicator that most effectively highlights overall Court performance. For the last financial year, the Report shows that, on average, Courts are dealing with 76% of cases on time against a target of 78%.

'However, I would warn against focusing on any one of the eight performance criteria in isolation of the others and in isolation of the different factors that can influence individual Court performance - it is not a league table. Influencing factors include geographical locations, type of cases dealt with, and organisation of work between Court centres across groups. For example, in London work is shared across the group of Crown Court centres to achieve performance as a whole, rather than at individual courts.

'I look forward to Crown Court performance going from strength to strength.'

Lord Justice Judge, Senior Presiding Judge said: 'The Crown Court Annual Report represents a clear acknowledgement of judicial involvement in and contribution to the effective organisation of the Crown Court. Without undermining the principle of judicial independence, this report reflects the welcome element of increased co-operation between the judiciary and the Court Service which should contribute to the fulfilment of reasonable public expectations of the Court system.'