20/06/2023
Police Oracle
The Magistrates’ Association has just published a landmark report on the accessibility of magistrates’ courts across England and Wales.
Based on a survey of more than a third of magistrates’ courts, the report has revealed that a largely inaccessible court estate threatens to undermine the efficiency of courts and equal access to justice.
The Magistrates’ Association is the membership body for magistrates in England and Wales and was founded over one hundred years ago, in 1920. It is the main mouthpiece of our volunteer sentencers who preside over the vast majority (more than 90%) of criminal cases.
State of our courts
Readers who follow barristers and solicitors on social media are probably well-acquainted with posts complaining of dilapidated court rooms, leaking ceilings and out of order toilets. But this is the first widescale survey to reveal the full extent of a somewhat depressing picture.
The association’s survey of 57 court buildings paints a deeply concerning picture of a dilapidated court estate in which judicial areas are frequently less accessible than public ones and disabled magistrates are often excluded as a result. Restrictions on where magistrates can sit or where trials can take place not only adversely impact court capacity and efficiency, but also undermine the government’s efforts to improve diversity and inclusion in the magistracy.
Findings
Three quarters of courts surveyed (75 per cent) were found to be inadequately accessible, with seven courts entirely inaccessible for disabled magistrates. Almost two thirds (63 per cent) were found to be in need of improvement due to accessibility failings such as a lack of wheelchair access throughout the building, an absence of accessible toilets, a lack of functioning hearing loops in courtrooms, and poor or no signage in the building.
In nearly a third of courts surveyed (30 per cent), disabled magistrates had been restricted from sitting in certain courtrooms or even entire buildings due to accessibility failings and unexplained delays in repairing vital facilities like lifts. This, in turn, had prevented them from undertaking certain types of work, such as remands or crown court appeals.
Nearly a third of courts surveyed (32 per cent) lack an accessible toilet on the magistrates’ side of the building, so disabled magistrates are required to use one in the public areas. Some data collectors told the Magistrates’ Association that this involves cumbersome workarounds or traveling long distances, and magistrates reported having to be accompanied by security personnel for this purpose. Sentencers should not have contact with people whose cases they are hearing outside the court room and the Association says that the loss of independence in such instances is “unacceptable”. The survey also found that a significant minority of courts (five of the 57 involved in this survey) had no accessible toilet at all, for all court users.
In the context of significant court backlogs, the Magistrates’ Association highlights that 305 sitting days were lost in the magistrates’ courts due to planned and unplanned maintenance in 2022. It states that anything preventing magistrates from performing their role must be rectified to ensure that cases can be heard and timely justice delivered.
Conclusion
The Magistrates’ Association argues that accessibility of court buildings is intrinsically linked to encouraging greater judicial diversity. The report reveals a disconnect between the government’s accessibility strategies and policies and the on-the-ground reality in courts. It suggests that by failing to proactively ensure buildings are accessible for all court users, the government is not only disregarding its duties, but also actively undermining the effectiveness of recruitment campaigns that aim to increase diversity and inclusion in the magistracy.
A lack of accessible court buildings could, for example, disincentivise applications to the magistracy from disabled people. The report concludes by saying that the failure to maintain accessibility features or accommodate disabled magistrates’ needs has both had a serious negative impact on morale and has led to resignations from the bench.