X Close

The unreported anarchy of British courts Journalists no longer hold judges to account

'In the Nineties, judges were much scarier.' Oli Scarff/Getty Images

'In the Nineties, judges were much scarier.' Oli Scarff/Getty Images


February 8, 2024   5 mins

In truth, the old maxim that justice “must be seen to be done” has nothing to do with the rights of spectators or reporters in court. It comes from a judgement established in 1924 during a dangerous driving case, in which one of the judge’s clerks worked for a firm who was also suing the driver in his personal capacity. While the clerk was exonerated of having leant on the judges, the sentence was quashed simply because the Lord Chief Justice thought that it had the potential appearance of malfeasance.

A century later, the question of whether we the people have a right to know about justice remains unresolved. Despite our obsession with “transparency”, it is becoming increasingly hard to know what is going on inside Britain’s courts.

“Atrocious”, was how the chair of the Bar Council described our justice system earlier this week, in an interview with the Financial Times. But just how “atrocious” is impossible to glean. Over the past decade, court reporting has withered as funding dries up. And no company embodies this more than Court News UK, the last court reporting agency to operate from the Old Bailey, where I’ve spent the past three months following their reporters for a podcast documentary.

“There are huge black spots now,” says Guy Toyn, co-owner of Court News UK. “London is still fairly well covered. But go up to cities as big as Birmingham, or Nottingham, and there just isn’t anyone there to see what’s going on. Let alone regional courts.”

For the last 25 years, Court News UK has been run by two reporters, Toyn and Scott Wilford. In the early days, they worked from a “windowless basement” bursting with at least three other press agencies, several photographic agencies, and dedicated court reporters from the likes of The Telegraph, The Times and The Sun. “It felt like a Fleet Street annexe,” says Wilford. They wrote up reports, then sold them to national and local papers. “At one point we had 10 reporters and two photographers. You could literally get an order from anywhere — I think there’s a newspaper up in the Orkneys that was one of our clients. They all had budgets. All these local papers around London had budgets. So you’d have a running list of seven or eight murder trials and be thinking: God, how am I going to service all this…”

What happened next is a familiar story. First the internet, then social media, blew up their model. By the late 2000s, national papers began to cut costs, and local ones mostly went bust, folded into bigger consortiums that stripped out most of the on-the-ground reporting and stuffed what remained with clickbait. Court News’s rivals all went bankrupt. The staff of 12 at Court News shrunk to four. Increasingly, the recruits are smart first-jobbers, who can make do with the meagre pay.

The world, in other words, moved on. Much of the journalism that has passed into history isn’t worth sentimentalising, any more than the passing of the lead presses that used to rumble the pavements of Fleet Street. But court reporting is not like most other journalism. It is an almost artisanal trade that relies upon reporters trained in shorthand and familiar with contempt and libel laws, who sit at the back of cases for hours while arcane points of law are expounded, spooling out pages of notes. Whereas many media businesses were supplanted by slicker models enabled by the internet, in court reporting there is simply no alternative to being there. The legal fraternity and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) are not going to provide the information, let alone parse it.

This is because the legal world is curiously insular. The courts tend to treat any spectators as an unfortunate nuisance. For the English and Welsh system, there is one rudimentary website that lists the following day’s court schedule by the names of the defendants. It gives no sense of the charges. And it is subject to change. In fact, it is common to turn up at the appointed place at the right time and be greeted by an empty room — the proceedings were probably moved, but no one bothered to tell the non-lawyers. For court reporters, the only way to receive a full list of the charges ahead of time is still to seek out the judge’s clerk, ask for them in person, and hope that the clerk is well-disposed.

Lawyers have little incentive to fill in the gaps. Even policemen — once happy to have a quiet word with the press about a particular case — are increasingly mute, tied down by the politics of their press offices. There is also no way of obtaining trial information after the fact. As the BBC recently acknowledged, it is impossible to request a court transcript in this country unless you have several thousand pounds to hand. As recently as 2011, stenographers sat on every bench. In a charmingly English way, they were effectively privateers — you could approach them directly, and purchase from them a copy of the official record. But a modernisation wave swept all that away: today, court proceedings are recorded, but the recordings are property of the MoJ. Because it is illegal for private citizens to possess audio of a trial, obtaining a transcript requires hiring a transcription service, which would have to type up weeks of proceedings, with the bill dumped at your door. One rape victim was quoted £7,500.

This matters, not only because of the problem of informational black spots across the land, but because right now court reporters should also be bringing us news on the overall decline of the justice system. On this, the Court News owners agree: in all their 30-odd years of experience, the system has never before been this slow or this useless. “When I started in the Nineties, judges were much scarier. Dickensian, even,” Wilford says. “But they got things done, and there was no messing around. All these murder cases would tend to open on a Monday morning. Now, the whole process seems to have slowed down, so nothing ever seems to start on a Monday. Excuses are made, and then you still find yourself waiting for cases to start on a Wednesday. I think the public would probably be staggered to see how slowly it moves. There always seems to be some kind of administrative blunder in the offing, or prisons don’t seem to produce defendants when they should. Always something.”

One afternoon, during the months I spent in their office, a Court News staffer came back fuming about the sentencing of a Tunisian illegal migrant who slashed his 19-year-old girlfriend’s throat. The trial concluded; he was found guilty. But arriving at the court, the reporter found that sentencing had been delayed for three months, and no one could work out why.

Wilford would often turn the air blue as fresh court dates rolled in, incensed by judges booking in hearings for 2026. In September 2023, I witnessed the sentencing of the accomplices of the crooked cop Frank Partridge, where an apologetic Judge Christopher Hehir gave all the guilty a sixth off their tariff — because their case had been pending since 2015.

Eddie Beaver, who Court News recruited straight from university 18 months ago, agrees that the system is broken. “If I can think of an example that perfectly encapsulates the current attitude of judges, it was when I saw an email that a member of court staff had received at the Old Bailey, and it said the Old Bailey is going to have a ‘new culture’. One where cases will be dealt with swiftly: there will be no dithering. With the caveat that: ‘We will begin to implement this new culture in three months’ time…’”

Many blame budget cuts for the collapse of the justice system. During the Coalition years, the low-priority Ministry of Justice was chopped by around 25% in real terms. “But people have always blamed funding,” Toyn points out. “Ever since I’ve been here, there’s never been enough money. The difference is this: a few years ago, if you had some sort of ridiculous delay, the judge would be extremely angry. I remember a judge — I think his name was Stokes. When the barrister used to come in and say, oh, you know, this isn’t ready, he’d say, exasperated, ‘Caaaaaan we get onnnnn…’ And these barristers would be absolutely terrified, quaking in their boots. Nowadays, it’s all very laid back.”

And with 11 justice secretaries in 14 years, it’s not a problem the Government seems interested in resolving. “It’s just not sexy, is it?” says Beaver. “No one ever got elected on a promise to make the courts work faster.” But is that any excuse? After all, justice should be seen to be done — even if it’s not being done very well.


Gavin Haynes is a journalist and former editor-at-large at Vice.

@gavhaynes

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

32 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J Bryant
J Bryant
8 months ago

.

Tom Lewis
Tom Lewis
8 months ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Is that a “Words fail me” comment ?

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
8 months ago
Reply to  Tom Lewis

‘Just his’ way of doing it justice.

J Bryant
J Bryant
8 months ago
Reply to  Tom Lewis

It’s Unherd’s new moderation policy. Any objectionable comment is crushed to a singularity.

JR Stoker
JR Stoker
8 months ago
Reply to  J Bryant

He’ll be making his views clear in May 2024

Paddy Taylor
Paddy Taylor
8 months ago
Reply to  J Bryant

I quite see your point.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
8 months ago

Unfortunately it is not just in the Judicial system that slackness and a lack of drive have overwhelmed the service on offer. I remember being told 50 years ago about the appalling delays in the Courts of places like Greece and Egypt compared to the comparative despatch and efficiency that matters were concluded in England. Despite all the advantages conferred by IT we have slipped into approaching things in a third world dilatory manner.

Much of it arises from an abdication of authority. The fierce Judge and ferocious matron dare not exercise authority for fear of charges of bullying. To have someone “quake in their shoes” has becomes an offence not a symbol that standards are to be maintained.

It has nothing to do with money – everything to do with slackness and loss of standards. Everything is infected with bureaucratic sloth. No one is properly in charge. Yesterday the anonymous junior doctor wrote about taking 30 minutes to find the patients notes scattered around the ward as if this was a normal and acceptable way of proceeding. It is the new mindset. Don’t criticise failings someone’s feelings might be hurt.

Nanu Mitchell
Nanu Mitchell
8 months ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

Non accountability- I think a similar problem in countries like India

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
8 months ago
Reply to  Nanu Mitchell

Comparing the two countries is a fascinating study. It’s not clear who taught who, but in.200 years of being intertwined , they have clearly adopted each others best practices in terms of bureaucratic paralysis and inefficiency.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
8 months ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

This could very easily be applied to teaching too. In the last school I taught at the headmaster was extremely cross with me for bringing up the lack of institutionalized discipline at one of our meetings. I was told that discipline is an outdated concept and that we should seek to persuade rather than to punish. The problem is that no-one wants to appear to be the bad guy in education. Our current school system operates under the grave misassumption that children would naturally be incredibly brilliant learners if only the right teacher was in front of them. And this is a major problem for teachers. They inhabit the worst of all worlds. They are held entirely accountable for everything that goes on in the school: the behavior of the children, the quality of teaching, and ensuring that everyone passes exams. Yet perversely, they are given very little institutional authority to actually do anything.
As a result almost every sane human being is leaving the school system only to be replaced by newly-qualified (and cheaper) teachers who have been drip-fed woke pedagogies at college. If I wasn’t such an optimist I could almost believe that this is all happening according to some grand design. School these days seem more about teaching the right attitudes toward pet causes (LGBQT, DEI, and climate justice) rather than the effective transmission of subject-matter. And the sad thing is, that the children deep down know that the adults around them are lying, that they are false, weak, and ineffectual, which is why they start acting up. They actually crave borders and limits, but are obviously too young to know that. I would say that the whole point of a civilized society is to adequately convey these limits so that children grow up to be mature and responsible adults.
I left that school last year and the headmaster, to his credit, came and told me that the children were really sad to see me leave, that despite my disciplinarian teaching methods they had really appreciated my classes. It kind of cheered me up, even if he was perhaps just being nice. I’d personally felt that I’d done a dreadful job. I guess the rewards that come with teaching are not immediately evident, but in any case, I doubt very much I will be returning to teaching. It burns you out after a while.

Chipoko
Chipoko
7 months ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

As a former secondary school teacher and latterly university lecturer myself, I totally recognise your portrayal of the education system as you experienced it. Schools and universities are now places where students are taught WHAT to think, not HOW to think. Incorrect thinking or failure to regurgitate correct thinking are punished with cancellation in degrees of vindictiveness.

C Ross
C Ross
8 months ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

Death of God and all that. Moral authority and the centre that holds long gone and the law now has to be mindful of law and not grounded in moral authority. Welcome to legal positivism

Richard Hopkins
Richard Hopkins
8 months ago

Dickens wrote scathingly about the practice of the Law in Victoria times in Bleak House. The slower the case, the fatter the fees. The scale and reach of the Law has increased hugely since then. The FT story, quoted in this piece, said that the British legal industry was worth £52.7 billion in 2022 – the second largest in the world, after the USA. Odd, for such a small country.

Ironically, as the shameful PO scandal has shown, even the “most widespread miscarriage of justice in British legal history” just results in further fees – with no accountability visible yet. It’s hard not to conclude that the dysfunction of the justice system appears to still function rather well for those working within it.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
8 months ago

Even two thousand years ago Juvenal felt compelled to ask:- “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”* of the finest legal system the world has ever seen.
No need to tell you whose.

(*Loosely “who judges the Judges?”. Satire VI .347-348.)

Richard Hopkins
Richard Hopkins
8 months ago

Indeed.

‘The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state.’ – Tacitus.

N Satori
N Satori
8 months ago

Judges no longer scary and no longer able to press barristers into doing their job properly? Sounds like another example of the crisis of authority afflicting the institutions.

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
8 months ago
Reply to  N Satori

Q. Are judges appointed on merit? Or have progressive quotas on gender etc been operating for the last two decades? The Age of Deference is long gone. But if social engineering and progressive ideology determines who sits on that bench do not be surprised if its vital authority has been washed away on the tide.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
8 months ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

Quotas are now the order of the day. Just look around you!
However, what self respecting top notch ‘Silk’* would want to be a Judge these days?

(*KC.)

N Satori
N Satori
8 months ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

I’m more inclined to think that there has been a steady cultural shift toward Left-liberal values at all levels of society. In earlier times the Woke absurdities which plague us would have been laughed out of town. Now, if you dare to laugh, you could be in deep trouble.
Are there any traditional conservatives eager and ready to take charge and re-invigorate our flaccid institutions? I don’t see them.

Chipoko
Chipoko
7 months ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

The UK, like Israel, suffers from a judiciary that is out of control. Our judges make laws that affect us all – especially in relation to the application and interpretation of ‘human rights’ – rather than confining themselves to applying the laws made in Parliament via the machinery of democratic governance. This fundamentally undermines democracy in which elected representative (i.e. MPs) make the laws in Parliament and are held accountable and subject to removal. Not so with appointed judges who appear to be accountable to none but themselves. It is largely they who have inverted the law so that its principal focus is now minority rights, not the rights of the majority as was historically the case. It is through this misdirection of the law that the Woking Class elites which emerged in the 21st Century, building on the ‘progressive’ foundations of the late 20th Century, have captured and consolidated such an iron grip on power and control at every level in society, horizontally and vertically. The rooted tyranny, and its curtailment of free speech, from which we suffer today is primarily a consequence of this perversion of the law – i.e. to give unprecedented priority to minority interests, as driven relentlessly by ruthless legal practitioners and their Establishment fellow travellers whose position is now unassailable. Manipulation of the Law and legal systems has cowed the entire population of the Western ‘democracies’ far more effectively (and more permanently) than bullets and bombs could ever have achieved.

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
8 months ago

Of all the national institutions to have become utterly corrupted by the Progressive Revolution, now tawdry scummy British Justice has fallen the furthest. The precious thread of common law twisted and broken as we embraced the suffocating codification of Europe. The scales of justice wilfully tipped to accord with the devastating new Equality laws and their super privileged Nine Victim groups. Result? Unelected judges dictating gleefully to Parliament. Leftist mmigration lawyers allowing near every illegal migrant – sex crime no prob – to stay (compare to the French). Human rights lawyers set to destroy the finances of your local councils with demented (not like for like) gender pay rulings. The whole EHRC fiasco and the mocking by this privileged London class of fox bashers of democratic mandates. The list of woe is just too long. Brirish justice has gone the same way as the Civil Service, BBC, NHS. Captured. Changed. Corrupted. Unworthy of trust and respect.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
8 months ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

If you want some bedtime reading try the 5,000 page Saville Report.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
8 months ago

Sadly like everything else even the standard of British Judges is sadly declining.
Gone are happy days of Horace Avery, Christmas (Toby) Humphreys and Aubrey Melford Stevenson, to replaced by the likes of Tom Denning, Archie Marshal and Leonard Hoffman.

N Satori
N Satori
8 months ago

Not so sure about Christmas Humphreys, a keen Buddhist and a bit of a wet.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
8 months ago
Reply to  N Satori

As a KC and later QC be prosecuted at the Japanese War Trials, the Craig-Bentley case, the Ruth Ellis case, the Timothy Evans case and the Klaus Fuchs case.

As a Judge he certainly ‘went of the boil’, perhaps because of his role I. three of those high profile prosecutions?

William Amos
William Amos
8 months ago

I wonder if anyone could comment as to whether this a legacy of the Woolf Reforms of 1997 or in spite of them?

Rob N
Rob N
8 months ago

The problem is not only the delays and lose of determination for justice to be speedy but also the frequent lack of an appropriate punishment and the clear 2 level justice system: trans people not going to jail because it wouid be hard for them, illegals getting reduced or no sentences because they had already suffered in their own country or did not know the law.
It all seems to be part of a Government/WEF wide policy of destroying the country in every possible way. Presumably so that we will agree to them ‘taking charge’ to save us from their actions.

Gordon Arta
Gordon Arta
8 months ago

The UK’s legal system, like many of its other institutions, is obsolescent, tired, and increasingly out of touch with reality and reason. Its adversarial model, complex and often contradictory precedent, procedural complexity, ill thought out technicalities, and lawyers rewarded by how long they can string cases out, mean that ‘the law’ bears little relationship to ‘justice’.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
8 months ago

Standards began dropping in the ’60s and you see the result everywhere you look. A new Decline and Fall will be written by some brave soul a hundred years from now. Or more likely it will be a rogue AI gone off the reservation. It will be read by a narrow slice of society that has taken the trouble to educate themselves despite the risk of punishment by the state and culture. You wouldn’t want to be alive.

Katalin Kish
Katalin Kish
8 months ago

Contempt of court is an indictable offense.

As a devastated victim of ongoing, not just unpunished by unreportable crimes* since 2009 in a leafy suburb of Melbourne, Australia, where we are told not to resist mugging attempts, and our children to walk to/from school in groups to discourage assaults/muggings/abductions, I can only feel contempt for judges weeping for the hardships suffered by perpetrators of crimes, while ignoring the trauma crime victims carry for life.

While the victims’ taxes are paying for the judges’ salaries & the welfare benefits of the perpetrators, as well as the upkeep of the bureaucracy that enforces the secrecy of Australia’s absurd crime reality.

* Victoria Police routinely block reporting attempts even from public servant witnesses of crimes punishable by 10 years in jail/worse.

Katalin Kish
Katalin Kish
7 months ago
Reply to  Katalin Kish

Typo:
not just unpunished by unreportable crimes
– should read –
not just unpunished but unreportable crimes

NIck Brown
NIck Brown
7 months ago

“Shrank”, not “shrunk”. Does anybody proof these articles?