Part 3: Helping to plan for the management of future court workloads

Ministry of Justice: Supporting the management of court workloads.

3.1
In this Part, we set out our findings about the Ministry's:

plans for supporting the management of increasing court workloads;
forecasting of court workloads;
interactions with other members of the justice sector; and
communication about the level of court workloads.

3.2
We expected the Ministry to:

produce soundly based plans for supporting the management of increasing court workloads, which take into account forecast court workloads and important factors influencing workloads;
use information from monitoring the courts to enhance planning and make improvements; and
provide timely and relevant advice to the Government about policies and resources needed to address workloads for civil and criminal cases in the High Court and District Courts.

Our overall findings

3.3
The Ministry's plans for supporting the management of increasing court workloads involve a series of initiatives expected to improve the efficiency of the courts. Overall, the initiatives the Ministry has under way align well with our understanding of the pressures the courts are facing. The Ministry has a high level of interaction with other members of the justice sector. All the other members of the justice sector whom we interviewed told us they work regularly and closely with the Ministry on relevant projects. This is important, because the Ministry cannot carry out these projects on its own, and working collaboratively with multiple members of the justice sector is critical for these projects to proceed.

3.4
The Ministry makes appropriate use of the forecasts it produces. It acknowledges the limitations of its forecasts and does not rely too heavily on them for its planning. We reviewed the information the Ministry shares with the justice sector, select committees, and Ministers, and found that it aligns well with the Ministry's internal information. The Ministry clearly and consistently communicates the current level of court workloads and plans for the future. Good reporting by the Ministry helps the sector understand the current state of the courts, and supports a co-ordinated response to managing court workloads.

Plans for supporting how increasing court workloads are managed

The Ministry has a series of initiatives under way to support how increasing court workloads are managed. These initiatives align well with our understanding of the pressures the courts are facing.

3.5
Figure 3 shows some of the Ministry initiatives designed to help to manage increasing court workloads by creating and using more efficient processes.

Figure 3
Ministry of Justice initiatives to address court workloads

Auckland Service Delivery Programme The Auckland Service Delivery Programme is a long-term plan designed to deal with the growth of court workloads, while also helping the courts run more efficiently. The plan includes: extending the operating hours of courthouses; building new and expanded facilities, with priority on increasing jury trial capacity; moving specialist courts and tribunals to a dedicated facility; making space available in the Auckland District Court; and increasing courthouse capacity by moving registry processes to a less expensive centralised facility. This will make space available in frontline locations and deliver services more efficiently. The Auckland Service Delivery Programme links closely with work on technology and criminal procedure simplification. Criminal Procedure Simplification Project The Criminal Procedure Simplification Project is a major operational and policy project to reform, streamline, and simplify criminal court processes. It aims to reduce court delays within the District Courts by improving case procedures and simplifying the legislation governing the procedures. The project involves changes to legislation that will enable changing the operational model of the courts. Technology initiatives An Electronic Operating Model has been proposed for the criminal summary courts, as a more efficient replacement for the current manual, paper-based process. The criminal summary jurisdiction deals with more than 200,000 cases each year. An Electronic Operating Model could deliver great efficiencies for courts and other agencies involved in summary court processes. The introduction of Audio Visual Links (AVL) technology, particularly links between courts and prisons, is expected to lower costs and improve security by reducing the need to transport prisoners for all hearings. Community Magistrates Community Magistrates can hear less serious criminal summary cases at a lower cost than a District Court judge. The introduction of Community Magistrates will also provide judges with more time to hear more serious cases.

Source: Internal Ministry of Justice document.

3.6
The initiatives summarised in Figure 3 are cited by the Ministry in discussions of its plans for supporting the management of increasing court workloads. These initiatives have emerged from the Ministry's own efforts and from the efforts of other members of the justice sector. The Criminal Procedure Simplification Project originated from a 2005 Law Commission report, Criminal Pre-Trial Processes: Justice Through Efficiency. It is now a joint project of the Law Commission and the Ministry. All of the projects involve multiple members of the justice sector.

3.7
The 2009/10 Budget provided funding to increase the number of Community Magistrates. Getting the Auckland Service Delivery Programme, Audio Visual Links (AVL), Criminal Procedure Simplification, and the Electronic Operating Model work under way will depend on the availability of funding and how fast the relevant legislation passes into law. The Ministry expects these projects to be completed within the next five years, with the exception of the Auckland Service Delivery Programme, which is a longer-term strategy with property-related components. If legislation is passed in early 2010 to enable the more widespread use of AVL in court proceedings, an AVL pilot is planned in the Auckland District Court for March 2010.

3.8
The initiatives the Ministry has under way align well with our understanding of the pressures the courts are facing. The courts under the most pressure are those in the Auckland region, and the Ministry has specific plans to respond to these pressures.

3.9
The Ministry expects the Criminal Procedure Simplification Project to provide a more efficient framework to manage criminal cases through the trial process. Because this project is based on legislation that has not been passed yet, we do not have a view on how effective or efficient it could be.

3.10
We consider it likely that a strong business case (with potential savings) for the AVL technology project can be made by the Ministry, the Department of Corrections, and the Police. The Government and Parliament would need to evaluate this business case and the consequences of the associated legislative change required for the AVL project to be carried out. Similarly, a strong business case should be able to be made for the Electronic Operating Model, which also requires legislative change.

3.11
The initiative to use community magistrates to handle matters that would otherwise need to be heard by a judge is, in our view, a reasonable and cost-effective approach to managing increasing court workloads.

3.12
Although we would expect these initiatives to improve court efficiencies, they are unlikely to be enough to fully address the issues arising from the growth in court workloads. As the Ministry is aware, there will still be a need for more courtrooms, judges, and registry staff. Planning to support future court workloads will be a continuing process and will require co-ordinated actions from the justice sector and all three branches of government.

3.13
The success of these initiatives relies on the close co-operation of members of the justice sector. Without such co-operation, the Ministry could act only on its own, and isolated Ministry actions would have, as one member of the justice sector describes it, "a miniscule effect overall".

Forecasting court workloads

The Ministry makes appropriate use of the court performance data it collects to monitor current court workloads and forecast future workloads.

3.14
The Ministry collects performance data for District Courts and for the High Court. The Ministry uses the data it collects to monitor and manage court workloads (see paragraphs 2.18–2.21).

3.15
The Ministry produces forecasts of court workloads to help with its own planning and to inform the justice sector about projected workloads. Ministry forecasts focus on overall volumes of cases likely to occur. Volume forecasts are also created for subsets of overall cases (for example, criminal summary trials, depositions, jury trials, and civil cases).

3.16
The Ministry will sometimes adjust its forecasts or produce an alternative forecast when it knows there is (or may be) a change likely to cause a deviation in historical trends, such as changes to criminal procedure or to Police numbers.

3.17
Each month, the Ministry monitors the variance between its forecasts and what actually occurs. The Ministry expects its forecasts to be accurate within a certain statistical margin of error. We noted that forecasts aggregating large numbers of cases (such as criminal summary trials) had less variability than forecasts looking at a subset of criminal cases (such as jury trials). Most forecasts stayed within the expected margins of error.

3.18
With any forecast, there is a level of uncertainty between what is forecast and what actually occurs. The Ministry is aware of the limitations of its forecasts and the level of uncertainty associated with forecasts. It understands that forecasts are subject to a margin of error and that, because of this, some flexibility needs to be built into plans. In 2010, the Ministry will begin to publicly report the accuracy of some of its forecasts – such as the number of cases managed and court sitting hours.

3.19
In our view, the Ministry makes appropriate use of its forecasts. It acknowledges the limitations of those forecasts, and its planning does not rely on them too much. We are pleased the Ministry intends to release public information about the accuracy of its forecasts.

Working with the justice sector

The Ministry works regularly and closely with other members of the justice sector. Inter-agency processes are seen as an integral part of how the Ministry designs and implements its own support for the management of court workloads. This in turn helps enable a co-ordinated response from the sector – which is needed when managing court workloads.

3.20
Figure 4 describes some of the Ministry's regular meetings with other members of the justice sector.

Figure 4
Regular justice sector meetings

Meeting	Who attends	Purpose
Justice Sector Chief Executives – meets monthly. Established after a 1994 Cabinet minute.	Chief Executive of the Ministry of Justice and counterparts in the Department of Corrections, the Police, Crown Law, the Ministry of Social Development, and the Serious Fraud Office.	Initially, to co-ordinate justice sector responses to the Government's strategic result areas. More recently, to provide a forum for discussing strategic policy, budget co-ordination, and a justice sector information strategy.
National Senior Operations Manager Forum – meets quarterly. Established by the Ministry.	Deputy Secretary of Operations from the Ministry of Justice and counterparts in the Department of Corrections, the Police, Crown Law, and the Legal Services Agency.	To provide a forum where strategic, national-level operations and management issues are discussed, with particular focus on the criminal justice sector.
Interagency Court Improvement Group – meets quarterly. Established by the Ministry's Operations Group.	Representatives from the Ministry Operations and Policy, District Courts judiciary, Crown Law, Law Commission, Legal Services Agency, the Police Prosecution Service, the Department of Corrections (Policy and Operations), and the New Zealand Law Society.	A formal meeting to discuss and progress issues of relevance to improving the courts, primarily focused on District Courts.
Criminal Practice Committee – meets bi-monthly. Established by the Ministry and the judiciary.	Representatives from the Ministry Operations and Policy, judiciary (all benches), Crown Law, the Law Commission, the Police Prosecution Service, and the legal profession.	Formal meeting to discuss issues related to criminal justice practice and policy.

3.21
The Ministry also works closely with relevant organisations on specific projects such as the Auckland Service Delivery Programme and the Criminal Procedure Simplification Project, and to produce sector-wide reports.

3.22
The Ministry uses the information it collects and its discussions with the justice sector to understand the current performance of the courts, and to help set the direction it will take to support management of future court workloads. The meetings are a forum for those involved with the courts to share information about plans for managing court workloads.

3.23
During our interviews, members of the justice sector told us they work regularly and closely with the Ministry on relevant projects. Many of these same people also told us their relationship with the Ministry had improved in recent years and that they can see benefits from that relationship.

3.24
The Ministry's view is that sector-wide meetings enable regular information sharing within the sector, and that inter-agency processes are an integral part of designing and putting in place important changes such as the expansion of AVL, the Electronic Operating Model, and the Criminal Procedure Simplification Project.

3.25
We agree with the Ministry's view. The Ministry cannot carry out these projects on its own, so working collaboratively with the sector is critical.

3.26
The Ministry's high level of justice sector involvement and interaction is appropriate, and makes it more likely such projects will succeed. Working collaboratively with the sector supports a co-ordinated sector response to dealing with issues in managing court workloads.

Communication about the level of court workloads

The Ministry is regularly and clearly communicating the current level of court workloads and its plans to help manage court workloads.

3.27
Good reporting by the Ministry helps the sector to understand the current level of court workloads, and supports a co-ordinated response to managing court workloads. A co-ordinated response is needed to plan for increasing court workloads.

3.28
The Ministry regularly communicates with the justice sector, Ministers, and select committees about the current level of court workloads, the progress of projects already under way, and plans for the future. The Ministry also provides information on projected court workloads to the rest of the justice sector, which can be used when planning for future workloads.

3.29
The Ministry communicates information about court workloads to the justice sector through mechanisms such as meetings, briefings, and reports. The Ministry also produces financial forecasts and budgets in support of its plans for helping to manage court workloads. Current and projected court workloads are factored into the Ministry's budget planning, as part of determining resource requirements (including those for the judiciary).

3.30
We have reviewed the information the Ministry shares with other members of the justice sector, select committees, and Ministers. It aligns well with the Ministry's internal information. In our view, the Ministry clearly and consistently communicates the current level of court workloads and plans appropriately for the future.

page top