|
|
|
|
|
effectiveness of the woolf report reform
|
|
|
In the mid nineteen eighties the English Civil Justice System was deemed to be in an unsatisfactory state, so in 1986 the Civil Justice Review, headed by Maurice Hodgkinson was set up to investigate the flaws and make recommendations on how to improve it. The report issued in 1988 did not receive popular support from the legal profession due to vested interests; Hodgkinson was not a lawyer and the recommendations he made, if implemented, were most definitely to result in a reduction of money received by lawyers, barristers and judges. Consequently only a few changes were made by the Legal Services Act 1990. Thus in 1994 the Conservative government appointed Lord Woolf to head a review into the whole system, 1996 saw the publication of the "Access To Justice Report" AKA "The Woolf Report". In his report Lord Woolf identified fundamental problems with the system and suggested ways in which they could be overcome, he declared eight principal aims and concluded that none of them were being achieved. According to the report, the Civil Justice System should aim to deliver fairness and justice at a reasonable speed and cost, be understandable to the people using it, provide certainty, be responsive to the needs of the people and be adequately resourced and organized. However, there are some inherent contradictions in these aims - for example a system that is quick and cheap does not necessarily provide justice. The recommendations were implemented in stages, the first one being the Civil Procedures Act 1997, and since April 1999 the majority of the changes have been in place. November 1998 - April 2000 was a changeover period when there was £12 million put into the system for retraining programmes for staff. As a result of the Woolf Report the Civil Justice System has been radically reformed, however, the effectiveness of these alterations is open to question. The main focus of the changes is that going to court should be attempted to be avoided in as many cases as possible, instead a pre-trial settlement (Alternative Dispute Resolution) monitored by the courts will be encouraged. It entails both parties negotiating an agreement whilst an independent arbitrator oversees the proceedings to ensure that justice is being done. With regard to the issue of justice ADR is an advantage as it combats the problem of unequal bargaining positions, the arbitrator is neutral thus no bias will be shown, both parties agree on who the arbitrator will be and agree to stick to the decision made. The claimant ensures that they get at least something - although it may be less, it cuts out the risk of losing the case and receiving nothing. The defendant prevents high profile publicity that could easily ruin their reputation (especially prominent in cases involving large companies) and also it means that they avoid the risk of losing the case and having to pay an even larger sum. ADR saves both parties and the courts a lot of time and expense. Although ADR has for the most part plenty of advantages it does also have some disadvantages, the most significant probably being the fact that there are no policies of precedent. No guidelines are provided for future cases due to each case“s judgment being based on its intrinsic rights and wrongs. Decisions may prove difficult to enforce, as the courts do not make them. Case Management is probably the most significant reform as it is crucial to fulfilling many of the intended aims. It means that nowadays the court plays an active role in how and when things take place. Currently the nature of English law is that of an adversarial system, the introduction of case management has meant the slight movement towards an inquisitorial system. The adversarial system creates a battle between the two sides i.e. the adversaries, and naturally a battle resorts to the use of tactics. A common tactic used by lawyers is delay, this in turn costs money, in order to avoid this the courts can set strict deadlines which if not met can lead to penalties in the form of a reduction of compensation received. Now the only way a case can be stopped or slowed down is if either side offers to settle. Cases are classified primarily by financial value of the claim, however complexity and importance may also be taken into account, the classification of the case will then determine which type of 'track“ it is allocated to. Three different tracks have now been established to deal with different levels of cases; Small Claims, Fast Track and Multi Track. Small claims courts resolve disputes with claims involving less than £3000 and are typically cases of consumers taking companies to court over faulty goods. The process is quick and cheap, the average time of a hearing is less than half an hour and the procedures are simple enough to be understood by Lay people.
|
|
|
|
Still Can't Find What Your Looking For? Then Try a Essay Search!
|
