Virtual Courts - update report

Report: 8
Date: 16 June 2011
By: Assistant Commissioner Central Operations on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report outlines the development of the Virtual Court initiative to date and how the process supports current government and MPA strategy. It considers the opportunity for future potential development of the system and the associated benefits to the MPS and partner agencies.

A. Recommendation

That Members note the current position on the initiative.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. Virtual Court (V.C.) is a new system linking MPS custody suites to a Magistrates’ Court in order to facilitate the first court appearance of a defendant following charge. Instead of being physically transported to the court the defendant remains within the confines of the police station and the hearing is conducted via a video link, with the necessary paperwork shared between agencies electronically.

2. The V.C. pilot period commenced in May 2009 operating across 15 police custody suites in central and south east London feeding into Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court. Originally, the pilot was for 12 months but this was subsequently extended until September 2010, when a full evaluation was completed by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Following the recommendations of this evaluation, the operating model was updated and the pilot period became a Trial Operating Period (T.O.P.) that continues to the present day. To date more than 6000 cases have been processed using the system with a current weekly average of approximately 90 cases.

3. In terms of governance, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) are the lead agency and the National Executive Board is chaired by their Director of Crime who is the Senior Responsible Officer (SRO). Assistant Commissioner Central Operations is the MPS member of that Board.

4. There is also a London Operations Board where the MPS is represented by Commander Criminal Justice (CJ) and an MPS specific project board which is chaired by Commander CJ.

5. V.C. is a national initiative with Kent also trialling the process. Ministers have indicated their support for further development as part of the overall governmental strategy of increasing the use of video links within the criminal justice system. The national pilot is being further extended with Cheshire due to adopt the system later this year.

Current Progress of Virtual Courts

6. The initial pilot period was subject to a MoJ evaluation process completed by external consultants, Consulting Inplace. The process has undergone significant change throughout the operational phase but the key elements of the initial pilot period were:

• Both bail and remand cases processed.
• Extended court sittings until 1845hrs Monday to Friday (traditional court times end at 1630hrs), with no V.C. at the weekend.
• Operated utilising a 15 minute per case fixed slot booking system.
• Utilisation of bespoke software (called the Collaboration Space designed to transfer case files between agencies), costing the MPS £35,000 monthly.

7. The key findings of the MoJ evaluation were:

• That the use of a video linked system was a viable means of hearing cases in the Magistrates’ Court.
• V.C. shortened the time between charge and first hearing ( by about 11 days for bail cases).
• A reduction in the number of fail to appear warrants (5% to 1%).
• However, extra work is placed on existing agency staff by the operating process of V.C. especially within the policing environment. (This related mainly to additional defendant handler time dealing with detainees and administration of the electronic transfer of case papers between agencies).

8. As a result of this evaluation a number of recommendations were made to improve efficiency and reduce costs. These were:

• Identify a nil cost replacement for the Collaboration Space.
• Concentrate on dealing with in custody cases only (in order to cut down staff time processing bail to return cases for V.C., reduce transport costs and maximise benefit from freeing up police cells).
• To move away from fixed 15 minute slot booking system in order to increase volume.

9. The revised T.O.P. commenced at the end of September 2010 and introduced innovations into the process that met all of these recommendations. The key refinements included implementation of a new flexible listing process allowing cases to be called on when ready removing the constraint of fixed slots; using e-mail instead of the Collaboration Space and dealing with in custody cases only. The migration of all 15 police sites onto the use of e-mail was completed in February 2011 enabling the Collaboration Space contract to be terminated in March 2011 saving the MPS £35,000 per month. It should be noted however, that the use of e-mail is appropriate for the current size of V.C. but a London wide roll out would likely require a more robust I.T. solution to deal with the anticipated volume, audit and management information requirements. Currently the MoJ is developing a document collaboration solution and the requirement for this is likely to form part of any future business case.

Virtual Court Next Steps

10. Current Home Office strategy within Criminal Justice has three key strands;

• to create a digital Criminal Justice System;
• to increase the use of video technology and
• to streamline case administration realising greater efficiencies.

Home Office Ministers have indicated their support of the V.C. process as supporting these strands as well as the wider use of video technology such as the “Live Link Courts” project as detailed at para.17.

11. The V.C. Operations Board is currently examining further ways in which V.C. can be evolved. Whilst potential developments will require cross agency approval it is likely that V.C. will continue to focus on custody cases and seek to widen the type of case dealt with to include subjects wanted on warrant, currently excluded due to restraints in HMCTS administrative processes. Research is also taking place into the potential benefits of re-organising the current 15 police sites to feed into three separate courts in line with the HMCTS London area structure. This could improve process efficiencies with the lead court for each area taking responsibility for cases from their local stations. Other options include processing specific classifications of bail offences where there is a clear rationale to do so, for example drink drive offenders who potentially could have their cases heard within 24 hours of being charged allowing for faster disqualification, as opposed to being remanded on bail to the local court several weeks later.

12. Future developments for V.C. could include a potential London wide roll out. At the current time there is no detailed planning in place with regard to this, but the preferred option is likely to be to equip one Magistrates’ Court in each of the 9 HMCTS London Regions linking to the main feeder custody centres. This would provide the opportunity for a structured and phased roll out of V.C. meeting agency needs and retaining ownership of the process at the local level.

13. Accommodation for V.C. has been provided for in new build custody centres in accordance with the design standards. They have been constructed for Polar Park, Fresh Wharf and Leyton and are under construction at Croydon, Wandsworth, Wood Green and Brixton.

14. Long term planning under the TP Development Programme to reduce to 30 custody facilities will take a few years to realise. Any future V.C. roll out would be co-ordinated with this programme to maximise estate options. As part of this programme there are proposals to introduce shared custody services between some sites (e.g. Merton and Sutton) and these proposals coupled with the requirements of the consolidated EIPT programme which is also with the TP Development Programme, would be taken into account when planning future expansion.

15. A new framework contract is being negotiated by National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) with Cable & Wireless that will allow the MPS to request specific V.C. services as part of the wider PNN3 contract. This would greatly improve the efficiency of V.C. within the MPS.

Benefits and Costs of Virtual Court

16. From the MPS perspective there are a number of potential benefits from V.C.

• Speedier first appearance. V.C. offers the opportunity for more flexible court hearings allowing individuals charged later in the day to appear before court after the cut off time of a traditional Magistrates’ Court (usually 1pm). This enables defendants initially remanded by police, to be bailed or taken to prison on the day of charge rather than being remanded over night for a next day hearing, freeing up cells space and reducing detention times. Late court hearings, and for some of the pilot extended prison reception times, were in operation but at the request of partner agencies hours have reverted to normal during the T.O.P. The MPS will work with partners to identify the best operating hours for all stakeholders for the future operation of V.C.
• V.C. allows for violent or escape risk offenders to have their cases heard from the security of the police custody suite thus removing the risks around physical transportation and minimising disturbances at court. The process regularly deals with the full range of offenders and is ideally suited to deal with high end offenders such as those charged with murder.
• Increased public trust and confidence. A faster more efficient means of dealing with court hearings is likely to increase Londoners confidence in MPS performance and that of the wider criminal justice system.

17. Future developments also offer considerable potential benefits for the MPS. The “Live Link Courts” pilot is currently trialling the ability for witnesses in criminal cases, currently only police officers, to give evidence over a video link from their home stations thus maximising the time they can spend on normal duties. Other long term developments could include the ability to deal with search warrants or legal applications over the links and even PACE interviews with prisoners held at alternate police or HMP locations. These developments support government strategy.

18. There are also potential benefits for partner agencies with V.C. These include the opportunity for improved efficiencies with faster court hearings as well as options for significant court estate rationalisation. The creation of electronic case file documentation is an efficient and effective means of moving case papers through the process and supports partner and governmental objectives of increasing digital working, and moving towards the concept of a paperless criminal justice system.

19. Financial costs of the current V.C. system are expanded upon below (section C, paragraph 7). Other costs to the MPS can be primarily summarised as additional staff time involved in administering the process. As part of the initial pilot period an MPS benefits analysis exercise was completed that identified each hearing took approximately 85 minutes of extra staff time to process from an MPS perspective. In a traditional court prisoners are removed from police custody by 8am in the morning and transported to court, whereas clearly with V.C. the detainee remains in custody until the hearing is completed. This accounts for the additional time spent in dealing with these detainees coupled with the general delays within the court process itself (e.g. legal and court delays). Where as hearings later in the day offer the opportunity of savings as detailed in para.16, V.C. does mean that defendants who would normally have been taken to court for the morning session, spend more time in police custody and this does have a knock on impact to custody facilities (eg availability of interview rooms). Refinements in V.C. and general court process are being examined in order to reduce delays further.

C. Other organisational & community implications

Equality and Diversity Impact

1. On commencement of the V.C. pilot period it was envisaged that a MoJ sponsored Equality Impact Assessment (E.I.A) would be completed at the end of the pilot. To date no cross agency E.I.A. has been undertaken however the Consulting Inplace evaluation did contain a section on equalities impact concluding that there were no significant concerns identified.

2. The MPA requested that an MPS specific E.I.A be completed and this has now been done. This involved consultation with a wide range of internal and external partners including Diversity Directorate, a number of borough Advisory Groups, Royal National Institute for Deaf, Centre for Mental Health and the National Autistic Society. In summary the findings were that the current V.C. operating process, subject to the reasonable adjustments that are currently in operation, does not negatively impact any specific community group.

3. There were a number of areas of potential equalities impact namely dealing with young people, mentally and physically disabled individuals, and those with specific language or communication needs. However the current operating system utilises two means of reasonable adjustments designed to mitigate these impacts. Firstly, where there is concern over the suitability of a V.C. hearing, then a physical court appearance should be arranged. Second, if an individual has particular needs but a V.C. hearing is deemed appropriate then an earlier hearing can be arranged with the court where possible to minimise time in custody.

4. The current V.C. suitability criteria does specifically rule out those under 18 years of age and as such could be seen as a negative impact. However this is due to current legislation which does not permit a youth case to be heard via a video link. From the community consultation, there is also clearly a split in opinion as to whether young people should appear before the V.C. Prior to a London wide roll out and as part of a cross agency E.I.A this specific matter merits further review.

Consideration of Met Forward

5. V.C. directly supports two of the Met Forward priority strands namely Met Partners and Met Support.

6. V.C. is a complex multi agency transformational project designed to deliver process efficiency across the participating agencies. V.C. is specifically mentioned within the current Met Forward strategy and supports two of the key strands of current government Criminal Justice policy, namely maximising the use of video link technology and delivering process efficiencies.

Financial Implications

7. The estimated cost of continuing with the pilot for a further 12 months until 31 March 2012 is £1,520k. This includes £560k for the cost of DDOs in the 15 pilot sites (1 per site). This expenditure is being met from the 2011/12 budgetary allocation made for DDOs in Virtual Courts (£1m), which was based on full rollout in 29 sites, and the balance remaining on the Virtual Court Reserve (£620k).

8. Future development of V.C. is under discussion between key senior stakeholders and at the current time it is unclear if there will be any wider roll out. If this is approved then there will be costs incurred with regard to the necessary technical infrastructure, staffing and potential refurbishment of existing estate in order to accommodate V.C. These additional costs will be the subject of a business case and considered as part of the MPS normal business planning processes.

Legal Implications

9. The existing MoJ contract with Cable and Wireless is not structured in a way which allows the MPA/MPS to procure services directly from Cable and Wireless. Consequently, the MPA/MPS do not directly purchase goods and services from Cable and Wireless under the MoJ contract.

10. European law has established that inter-authority co-operation without payment being made (other than reimbursement of the costs) is lawful. Access to the required technology for the pilot scheme by the MPA/MPS has been obtained on this basis via the MoJ, and not through a direct contract between the MPA/MPS and Cable & Wireless. The MPA/MPS has developed a memorandum of understanding formalising this relationship/collaboration between the Ministry of Justice and the MPA/MPS in December 2010.

11. For future procurement, to enable the expansion of V.C., it is anticipated that a new call-off contract under the NPIA (PNN3) framework agreement will be used (as stated in para 13 of this report). Such an arrangement will be subject to further advice from DLS once the details of the call-off contract are available.

Environmental Implications

12. No significant environmental impacts have been identified. Electricity consumption may increase slightly due to upgrade in ICT equipment and systems to support the Virtual Courts project and any further expansion, however this may be mitigated by the reductions in officer travel and carbon emissions.

Risk (including Health and Safety) Implications

13. There are no major Health and Safety risks associated with the V.C. process. All subjects in custody are routinely risk assessed as part of standard custody procedure and this is an ongoing process throughout their time in detention.

14. From a prisoner transportation aspect, the MPS custody directorate has identified transportation in prison vans as a high risk period for some defendants to self harm. The removal of this element of the process and the immediate health care available within MPS custody suites are positive aspects to V.C.

15. From the corporate perspective there is political support for the V.C. process and were the MPS not to continue the system, then there is the potential for adverse ministerial comment and potential MPS reputational damage.

D. Background papers

None.

D. Contact details

Report author: Chief Inspector Ian Howells, London Criminal Justice Partnership

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback