Shropshire Star comment: Change is courting a real crash
On the basis that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, the new court arrangements in which Shropshire’s remand hearings are now heard in Kidderminster should be spat out immediately.
When the proposals were mooted, reasoned arguments against them came from all parts of the county.
But in its wisdom the Ministry of Justice ploughed ahead regardless, ignoring all those voices.
Had the new set-up defied the critics by its evident smooth working, improved efficiencies, lower costs, and so on, that would have been that.
It has been in operation some weeks now, which is long enough for a judgment to be made on whether those difficulties that have been faced are teething troubles or fundamental flaws in the whole concept.
According to John McMillan, who has been a lawyer with decades of experience on the Shropshire scene, the situation is a shambles.
And an open letter from the Shropshire Defence Solicitors' Association says all the fears that were raised in advance have been borne out by practical experience.
They point out the inconvenience and expense, but make the point – in solicitors’ language – that it is a lousy system anyway.
One word they do not use is farce, but how farcical can you get when a police station has to put a notice up telling defendants on remand to avoid handing themselves in except at the convenient times?
If they get their timing wrong, they face being forced into having to wait 24 hours in police detention for the next “court run” when transportation is available. During that time, of course, somebody has to babysit them – the police.
So there is a lot not right with this system. But we cannot dismiss the possibility that with judicious improvements it might, just might, be made to hobble along.
It would be better though for the Ministry of Justice to admit that it has made a mistake, don its black cap, and kill it off. It could reintroduce the method of administering local justice locally, a philosophy which served Shropshire perfectly well until the beancounters got to work.
Those beancounters will surely claim that the new arrangements save money, but the front-line evidence is that they are costing a lot more money, albeit with a significant burden of cost falling elsewhere, including on defendants and relatives.
Even if this system had worked perfectly, exporting Shropshire remand court business like this is wrong in principle.
This is a classic case of if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And if the “fix” actually makes things worse, what was the point?
