Memorandum to the Crime and Justice Transparency Sector Panel - May 15, 2012

Will Gant, Central News Agency

Three meetings between HM Courts and Tribunals Service and Central News have so far been arranged via the transparency panel in order to raise issues regarding press access to information. The first two meetings, held on November 3 last year and January 17 this year, concerned the crown court. A third meeting took place on February 16 which related solely to the magistrates' courts.

Crown courts

(i) November 3, 2011

At this meeting, held at 102 Petty France, HMCTS was represented by deputy director for HMCTS crime (Crown) Martin Jones and HMCTS Chief Press Officer Mark Kram.

Multiple issues were raised, including poor staff media training and the severe difficulties faced by journalists trying to find out the charges faced by defendants in future hearings. This information is vital for prioritising coverage. The only current means of supplying this data to the press - via hard copies of annotated warned lists - is inefficient. Additionally, several Crown courts in London refuse to share these lists, citing data protection.

On December 1, I was copied into an e-mail from Martin Jones to London area manager Kate Briden, in which he asked individual court managers to be reminded "of their obligations to assist reasonable enquiries from journalists". He specifically asked managers "to ensure that arrangements are made to share the annotated court list."

(ii) January 17, 2012

A further meeting took place at Blackfriars Crown Court, at which HMCTS was represented by Kate Briden, Old Bailey manager Therese Curran, and Blackfriars manager Joanne Box. The issue of annotated warned lists was again the main topic of discussion, and Kate Briden agreed to investigate how these could be given to the press.

Present situation

With the exception of the Old Bailey, as of early May we are not aware of any Crown court distributing annotated warned lists which was not already doing so prior to this matter being raised with HMCTS. The issue is currently being pursued by Mark Kram, though we do not know how much progress has been made.

Other issues raised, such as some clerks allowing police officers to give their home addresses as 'New Scotland Yard', do not seem to have been addressed. We also continue to regularly encounter court staff, particularly clerks, who have a poor knowledge of what information they can and cannot give to journalists.

Magistrates' courts

February 16

At this meeting, also at 102 Petty France, HMCTS was represented by Mark Kram and Phil Golding,HMCTS Business Development and Improvement (Magistrates)..

An extensive list of issues was presented. Core among these was the late sending of court lists to journalists. These e-mailed lists, which include detailed information about the day's cases, often arrive less than an hour before the hearings they concern are due to start. I argued this was a breach of Annex F of the Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction. I also outlined data obtained via a Freedom of Information request which suggested many cases were not included on these lists at all.

Other matters raised included perceived special treatment and protection of personal information afforded to celebrity defendants, the challenge of persuading staff to provide the full names of magistrates and lawyers, and specific problems relating to youth courts.

Present situation

On April 19, I was sent a copy of a new HMCTS policy for distributing magistrates' court lists to the media. In accordance with the practice direction, the policy requires courts to send lists by 3.30pm on the preceding day at the latest.

As things stand, the new policy appears only to apply to magistrates' courts in London. Media based outside the capital may therefore not benefit from the change. Although lists now sporadically arrive a day earlier than previously, no date has yet been set for London's magistrates' courts to commit to the new policy. As of April 30, the HMCTS press office was still canvassing individual courts to find out when they would be able to start complying fully.

It is not clear what action, if any, has been taken with respect to the other issues raised. It is still common, for example, for reporters to struggle to find staff who both know the full names of those in court (particularly lay magistrates).