Thread by @OpenJusticeCoP

🧵Transparency

1/

Once a month or so, we look systematically at COP listings in Courtel/CourtServe (the publicly available listing service for the courts) to check how well they support transparency + open justice.

Here's September's analysis

Some good news

Some bad.

2/

We've kept our ambitions for the listings realistically modest.

We're only asking that COP hearings are in the COP list, make clear the public can observe, tell us whether a hearing is remote/hybrid/in-person, supply contact details + some info on what the hearing is about.

3/

So here's what the COP list in Courtserve looks like (the pic on the left)

CourtServe is free to access (you just have to register ) + it's the main way we find out about hearings, across all the courts (not just COP).

You can access it here: courtserve.net

4/

In CourtServe you can find out what hearings are happening.

Good entries look like this one.

It tells us that this hearing in Birmingham is open to the public (by video-link), there's an email address to ask for the link, and it's about Deprivation of Liberty.

Perfect!

5/

Unfortunately, not all listing is that good

Some Court of Protection hearings aren't in the Court of Protection list

Instead they're in the Daily Cause list for the country court - and there are literally 100s of hearings in these lists so it makes them very hard to find.

6/

When hearings aren't included in the COP list we call them "hidden" hearings.

We don't have time every day to go through all of CourtServe looking for hidden hearings, so our daily alerts don't cover them. We doubt anyone observes them

Here's one in Plymouth today.

There's another hidden hearing in Walsall today.

It's not in the COP list.

I only know about it because I spent 2 hours trawling through CourtServe looking for hidden hearings (and I only do that once a month or so).

Hidden hearings don't support open justice + transparency.

@HMCTSgovuk 8/

There's also a hidden hearing in Bristol.

One COP hearing in Bristol (before DJ Smith) is included in the COP list. The other one (before DJ Markland) is not.

So DJ Markland's case would not normally make it onto our alerts. We couldn't tell you about it.

Despite the hidden hearings in Plymouth, Walsall + Bristol, this is a Good News story.

We're pleased that 89% of COP hearings *are* in the COP list - that's a huge improvement.

Finally, the COP list has a credible claim to comprehensiveness

Well done @HMCTSgovuk 👋

10/

2nd Key Performance Indicator is that listings should make clear that the public can observe (when they can).

This is a miserable failure.

Three-quarters of the hearings say "private", "not open to the public" or "restricted" when this does NOT mean we can't observe.

11/

Sometimes hearings really are private and we're not allowed to observe them

But given the way hearings are routinely listed as "private" it's impossible for most people to tell which those are.

They're "Dispute Resolution Hearings" (DRH) + there are two listed for today.

12/

The problem of the public believing we can't observe hearings (when actually we could) is compounded because sometimes hearings are listed as "Dispute Resolution Hearings" (DRH) - and therefore "private" - when actually they're not DRHs at all.

13/

We know the judiciary is strongly committed to transparency+supports public observation of hearings

But it's really hard to convince the public of this when 75% of listed hearings are branded "private", "not open to public" etc.

This is an own goal for the #NotSecretCourt

14/

In order to decide whether or not to ask to observe a hearing, we need to know whether it's "attended" (i.e. in person, meaning we'd need to go to a physical courtroom), or "remote" (phone/video-link) or "hybrid" (which gives us a choice.

27% of hearings listed don't say.

I live 300 miles from Chelmsford. If these hearings are remote I can observe them. If not, I can't. But it doesn't say.

They're also both "PRIVATE" and one of them has no case number.

Please do better @HMCTSgovuk

16/

Here's another example of a listing - in Sheffield - which doesn't tell us whether the hearing is attended (in person), remote (phone/video-link) or "hybrid" - with some people attending in person and others remotely.

This is *so* unhelpful to would-be observers.

17/

This CourtServe entry for a hearing before DJ Ellington today in First Avenue House London doesn't say whether the hearing is attended, remote, or hybrid.

But on the Daily Cause list for First Avenue House it says "hybrid" - so it should have said this on CourtServe too.

18/

There seems to be some problem with transferring listing info from First Avenue House (FAH) to CourtServe.

This hearing before DJ Eldergill is confusingly listed as a "REMOTE ATTENDED" hearing in CourtServe. (The FAH Daily Cause says it's "remote").

@HMCTSgovuk 19/

There seems to be some problem with transferring listing info from First Avenue House (FAH) to CourtServe.

Here's another one.

This hearing before DJ Jackson is confusingly listed as a "REMOTE ATTENDED" hearing in CourtServe. (The FAH Daily Cause says it's "remote").

20/

We can't currently rely on CourtServe listings to tell us whether hearings are attended, remote or hybrid.

More than a quarter of listings omit this information or provide contradictory+confusing information

Please @HMCTSgovuk - this is pretty crucial info to get right!

21/

Our 4th Key Performance Indicator for the Court of Protection is this: give us the correct phone number and email address so that we can contact you to ask for links to hearings. (And/or addresses when hearings are in person).

Today 11% of COP hearings failed to do this.

Our 5th Key Performance Indicator for COP is: Tell us what the hearing is about (e.g. "Decisions relating to Deprivation of Liberty; Where P shall live; Serious Medical Treatment)

Today (20th September 2022) 17/26 hearings DID say what hearing was about + 9/26 hearings did not.

23/

It's hard to get people interested in observing hearings when there's no information what they're about.

A sense of civic duty only takes you so far

Knowing a hearing is in your area of interest/expertise makes such a difference to willingness to give up time to do this.

24/

I wonder if confusion generated by way the template elicits information?

Quite a few listings tell us about the type of hearing ("Directions", "Case Management" etc) but not what the hearing is about.

Both are useful of course.

Will be adding type of hearing to KPIs.

25/

When COP hearings appear in the Daily Cause Lists and not in the COP list, they often omit information both about the type of hearing and about the issues before the court i.e. what the hearing is about.

The improvement in getting more hearings in the COP list is positive!

26/

We've noticed a big increase in the number of people who volunteer to observe hearings when we've been able to tell everyone what they're about.

And people with relevant expertise and experience ask to observe them.

27/

We know the judiciary understands the need for descriptions of what cases are about - they've been saying this is needed for more than 7 years.

There's a gap between judicial aspiration and on-the-ground reality.

Please, @HMCTSgovuk can you bridge this gap!

28/

It's incredibly disappointing that 7 years after the judiciary expressed its aspirations for transparently describing what hearings are about, this still isn't happening on the ground (in 35% of hearings listed today).

@HMCTSgovuk

@HMCTSgovuk 29/

The challenge now is to keep working to reduce the gap between judicial aspiration + reality

We know that over-work + under-resourcing makes this challenging

We believe the COP is committed to open justice and transparency + WILL achieve this in the end.

#NotSecretCourt

30/

Thank you to all the court staff, lawyers, judges and members of the public who gave up time and effort to contribute to open justice and transparency in the COP this month.

#NotSecretCourt