Agenda item

1.    The Commissioner paid tribute to all members of staff and officers who worked hard in the Criminal Justice System to support victims and witnesses. He clarified that the report and the concerns that it raised were not a negative reflection on them.

2.    He also reported that he had received positive feedback on the effectiveness of the Kent Criminal Justice Board, that he chaired.

3.    In terms of the reasons behind the significant backlog in court caseload, he explained that, as a result of the impact and disruptions caused by the Pandemic, the caseload had more than doubled since then.

4.    In terms of staffing levels, there was a shortage of both judges and legal advisers. If more judges and legal advisers were recruited, then the total court caseload would decrease.

5.    In terms of work entering the system, with an increase in police officer numbers, more people were being charged by Kent Police. This had resulted in more cases progressing to the Crown Prosecution Service and to the courts. In addition, there had recently been a number of cases involving protesters and small boat crossings, which added to the workload. In short, there was a triple challenge involving the work entering the system, courts’ capacity and staffing levels.

6.    The Commissioner said that he was going to write to the new Government to reiterate those challenges, and work in partnership with the Government in order to address some of them - as the impact on victims, witnesses, defendants and staff was significant.

7.    In reply to a question about the possibility of using other venues to reduce the backlog, the Commissioner said that some work was already transferred elsewhere, for example the small boats’ cases were heard in Sussex. The main challenge was the shortage of staff; judges’ careers had to be made more attractive in order to encourage more people to apply. Many Kent-based staff opted to work in London to receive the London Allowance. The PCC had recommended that a Southeast Allowance be paid in order to break the cycle of failed recruitment campaigns and staff shortages. However, with no funding available, this recommendation did not materialise.

8.    A concern was raised about the increasing trend in the centralisation of courts. The Commissioner recognised that centralisation had the effect of disempowering teams locally. He added that, in order to increase the number of court cases heard, he believed that the use of the virtual video element was an effective solution. The South-East video enabled justice programme, which the Government funded and was coordinated by Kent and Sussex Police, showed positive outcomes and saved valuable police officers’ time. However, the funding for that programme ended and the judiciary opposed its use.

9.    In reply to a question about how Kent’s backlog compared statistically with similar counties, Mr Harper said that this was a regional issue involving all the counties bordering London. He added that all the relevant agencies, including the judiciary, the courts, the police and the Probation Service were doing everything in their power to address the backlog issue.

10. A Panel Member asked whether there was anything that could be done differently. The Commissioner replied that some elements of the process could be made more efficient and effective for victims, witnesses and defendants. This included making sure that offenders were sanctioned - which was important - but also promoting rehabilitation or other kinds of support to deal with the underlying problems.

11. The Chairman proposed to receive more regular updates on this important issue, before the planned update in June 2025.  It was agreed that the Commissioner would provide a verbal update on the Criminal Justice System at the Panel’s meeting on 18 December 2024 prior to the report update in June 2025.

RESOLVED: To note the report and agree to a further verbal update at the December meeting, prior the planned update at the June 2025 meeting.