Crown Court

Annual Report 2003 - 2004

Nottingham Crown Court

www.courtservice.gov.uk

Nottingham Crown Court

Annual Report by the Resident Judge and Court Manager RESIDENT JUDGE & COURT MANAGER COMMENTS:

Capacity at the moment is sufficient for our needs, but see under Accommodation below. Cracked and Ineffective trials I have recently implemented a new system to review trial readiness in an attempt to improve the courts performance. Oral PDHs continue. I regard these as essential. There is a new PDH form, simplified as against earlier models. I have introduced a system of Final Reviews which take place during the week before trial. These take place in all cases of violence or where the parties or the PDH Judge think that they are appropriate. They also take place where the information from the Final Review system shows up a need. Over the last three months there has been a marked improvement in the number of effective trials averaging 51% against an annual effective trial rate over the last 4 years, which has never exceeded 38%. Over this same period ineffective trials have averaged 15% and cracked trials35% against a previous annual best of 21% and 41% respectively. In the last 3 months February to April inclusive 164 trials were listed of which 26 were ineffective (15.8%). I am hopeful that Nottingham will move from the Red Light zone to the Green. Whilst it is still early days we anticipate that as the Nottinghamshire LCJB signed up to the ETM programme earlier this month that we should be able to sustain and continue to improve our performance. Nottinghamshire is in the process of signing up to the No Witness No Justice framework, which we anticipate, will decrease the number of cases, which prove ineffective. I am working with ETMP on Automatic Directions being given at the Magistrates Court at the earliest possible stages in cases. The Magistrates Courts are keen to assist. All of this should continue the trend of the last 2 years toward improving the witness waiting times and reduce the number of cases in which witnesses attend unnecessarily. It needs to be recognised, however, that the statistics take no account of the cases, which crack at the Review hearing which amount to over 100 a year, with the consequent saving of witness attendance. The Final Review system is the major reason for the reduction in ineffective and avoidable cracked trials. Our recent improvement has been achieved without any consequent delay in bringing cases to trial and it has not increased the number of stale cases. Failure of witnesses to turn up for trial is the major cause of ineffective trials at this court, next is the failure of defendants to turn up. Third is inadequate disclosure. All of these issues are being addressed. Users - I consult virtually daily with the Court Manager. She and I regularly consult with all agencies including the Defence and local Bar through quarterly meetings aimed at improving performance as well as any other initiatives which may affect business. The CM sits as a member of the LCJB as well as numerous sub-groups along side the other agencies; she is also the person responsible to the local board for delivery of ETMP. We consult with our users through nationally organised customer service surveys but because the response rate is so low we find these unhelpful. Instead local face to face surveys conducted by the court staff gives us a better idea of what can be done to improve our service because it consults many more users than the national survey. Community issues - There is a very active take up of opportunities for marshalling offered by the Judges by students from the local Law School as well as shadowing exercises offered to 6th form students. The court staff entertains a constant stream of work experience students through out the year. Court visits are encouraged and again there is a vigorous take up by universities, colleges, schools, and all manners of community groups. A member of staff acts as tour guide giving information and answering questions. Staff attend school activities when invited giving talks about the Crown Court, career advice and assistance with interviewing techniques. Staff The Judiciary are supported by excellent staff in all departments for which we are all very grateful.

Accommodation - The accommodation leaves much to be desired. Judges, jurors and vulnerable and intimidated witnesses share the same very narrow secure corridor whilst going about their business. 5 of our 8 courtrooms are below the required minimum size with jurors positioned far too close to counsels benches and with insufficient Page 2

Nottingham Crown Court

Nottingham Crown Court

Annual Report by the Resident Judge and Court Manager space in the public galleries to accommodate families and supporters. This often leaves court staff open to verbal and sometimes physical abuse. With ever increasing numbers of long cases and multi handed cases additional pressures are put on the 3 larger courtrooms only one of which has a secure dock. Nottingham experiences a high rate of gun crime cases which require use of the secure dock. Additional pressures arise out of cases, which are transferred to Nottingham for trial by adjacent courts ( Derby and Lincoln ) neither of which has a courtroom of sufficient size to take large cases. Victims and witnesses are, however, well served following additional funding provided under the Street Crime initiative. IT - There are three courtrooms fitted out with video link equipment and a further two courtrooms fitted with the prison video link which can be used for vulnerable witnesses, though this is not as satisfactory as the dedicated system. In reality with the type and number of cases at this court there ought to be the appropriate equipment in every court room as at the moment judges often have to move courtrooms to hear video evidence. The building is currently being cabled out for CTMP, which should be fully operational by early next year though the 5 smaller courtrooms are a major concern in terms of sufficient space being available to take the equipment. Roll out of Xhibit has yet to be decided. Due to the fabric of the building and the cost involved, existing cable management can be a real health and safety risk for the in court staff in those courtrooms which have sound enhancing equipment (a problem in itself) when the portable video equipment has to be set up. Future initiatives From June onwards I am looking to Judges to take a robust stance via costs orders both in respect of the prosecution and defence where their actions result in ineffective trials. A Case Progression Officer has been in place at this court for a number of years despite a lack of funding to support that post. Funding has been made available for such a post in all Crown Courts with effect from the start of this financial year which will enable us to further enhance the role, not least in respect of the timetables given to the parties under the Automatic Directions at the Magistrates Court. Finally I am hoping to take forward work which I started in Leicester with Mrs Freda Hussein (now High Sheriff of Leicestershire) in respect of schools. This involves the production of a teaching pack for use by teachers for a module on Criminal Justice within Citizenship teaching. Mrs Hussein hopes to introduce the scheme and encourage its adoption on a national basis during her term of office.

RESIDENT JUDGE: COURT MANAGER: Comments end here

HH Judge Pollard Pat Gamble

DATE: DATE:-

25/5/04 25/5/04

Workload
EW 03/04 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 % Diff

Trial Receipts Class 1, 2, 3 Class 4

Nottingham Crown Court

83,813 11,642 72,171

2,123 277 1,846

1,883 302 1,581

1,799 326 1,473

Page 3

2,027 425 1,602

1,863 369 1,494

-8.1% -13.2% -6.7%

Nottingham Crown Court

Annual Report by the Resident Judge and Court Manager
Trial Receipts by Class
2,500

2,000

1,500 Class 4 Class 1, 2, 3 1,000

500

0 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 Financial Year 2002/03 2003/04

EW 03/04 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 % Diff

Sentence Receipts Appeal Receipts Disposals Plea Rate Disposal Rate

31,919 12,019 83,247 57.9% 0.82

1,164 261 2,106 70.2% 1.51

920 234 1,903 69.0% 1.32

889 230 1,862 65.0% 1.29

1,029 218 1,949 68.4% 1.31

1,110 160 1,952 67.0% 1.21

7.9% -26.6% 0.2% -2.1% -7.6%

Guilty Plea Rate and Disposal Rate

80.0% 1.60

70.0%

1.40

60.0%

1.20

50.0%

1.00 DR figure Plea Rate Disposal Rate

GP %

40.0%

0.80

30.0%

0.60

20.0%

0.40

10.0%

0.20

0.0% 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 Financial Year 2002/03 2003/04

0.00

EW 03/04 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 % Diff

Outstanding Trials

29,752

533

528

476

561

482

-14.1%

Nottingham Crown Court

Page 4

Nottingham Crown Court

Annual Report by the Resident Judge and Court Manager
Outstanding Trials
600 561 533 500 528 476 482

400

300

200

100

0 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 Financial Year 2002/03 2003/04

Stale Cases
EW 03/04 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 % Diff

% trials outstanding over 39.3% 16 weeks % trials outstanding over 5.0% 48 weeks

19.3% 0.9%

17.2% 2.8%

24.4% 2.7%

25.5% 3.7%

29.3% 2.3%

14.8% -39.0%

Cracked and Ineffective

EW 03/04 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 % Diff

Trials listed (number) Ineffective trial rate Effective trial rate Cracked trial rate
50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0%

51,232 20.6% 41.0% 38.3%

1,033 23.8% 31.3% 44.9%

1,033 22.1% 37.3% 40.7%

942 23.8% 33.9% 42.4%

909 21.0% 38.1% 40.9%

854 21.2% 34.7% 44.1%

-6.1% 0.9% -8.9% 7.9%

Ineffective, Effective and Cracked Trials

Ineffective trial rate 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 Financial Year 2002/03 2003/04 Effective trial rate Cracked trial rate

Witness and Juror service

EW 03/04 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 % Diff

Nottingham Crown Court

Page 5

Nottingham Crown Court

Annual Report by the Resident Judge and Court Manager

Days jurors sit as a % of 59.3% attendance and non attendance % witnesses waiting 2 51.8% hours or less % witnesses attending 44.5% unnecessarily Average waiting time for 2.7 witnesses attending unnecessarily (hours)
70.0%

65.2% 27.2% 43.0% 4.1

62.4% 32.4% 54.9% 3.0

58.4% 44.9% 59.4% 3.3

64.5% 45.5% 52.9% 2.6

57.5% 38.5% 43.9% 2.8

-10.8% -15.3% -17.2% 5.3%

Percentage of Witnesses Waiting Within Target and Proportion Waiting Unnecessarily

4.5

Average Waiting Time for Witnesses Attending Unnecessarily (hours)

60.0%

4.0

3.5
50.0%

3.0
40.0%

2.5
30.0%

2.0

20.0%

1.5

10.0%

1.0

0.5
0.0% 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 Financial Year % witnesses waiting 2 hours or less % witnesses attending unnecessarily 2002/03 2003/04

0.0 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 Financial Year 2002/03 2003/04

Sitting Days
EW 03/04 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 % Diff

Average Trial Hearing 9.6 Time (hours) Average Guilty Plea 1.2 Hearing Time (hours) Average Sitting Day 4.33 Length (hours) Number of sitting days 101,320
Number of Sitting Days
1,800

5.3 0.6 3.58 1,399

6.5 0.8 3.65 1,443

6.2 0.7 3.58 1,443

9.0 0.9 3.86 1,491

6.8 1.0 3.53 1,616

-24.5% 20.3% -8.4% 8.4%

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 Financial Year 2002/03 2003/04

PSAs
EW 03/04 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 % Diff

Nottingham Crown Court

Page 6

Nottingham Crown Court

Annual Report by the Resident Judge and Court Manager

Average Waiting time 15.1 (weeks) % Defendants 79.4% commencing in target

12.0

9.1 91.0%

9.8 84.6%

10.5 89.0%

10.4 91.7%

10.9 89.8%

5.4% -2.0%

Average Waiting Time

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 Financial Year 2002/03 2003/04

Percentage Cases Commencing Within Target

(Trials 16 weeks, Sent for Trial 26 weeks, Sentence 10 weeks, Appeal 14 weeks) 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 Financial Year 2002/03 2003/04

Nottingham Crown Court

Page 7