JUSTICE SERVICES RECOVERY

Transcription

1 Case Study Christchurch Innovations JUSTICE SERVICES RECOVERY 1. What happened? The Canterbury earthquakes severely disrupted justice services in Christchurch, with the main court buildings remaining within the central city red zone cordon until July Ministry of Justice staff have since gained limited access to the buildings, given demolition of parts of the complex and entry to other areas continuing to be restricted while remedial work is carried out. Court services were quickly re-established in locations as diverse as Wigram Air Force Museum, Christchurch Men s Prison and Nga Hau e Wha National Marae. Additional sites, including the Moot Court, used to train law students at Canterbury University, were progressively added. In early 2012 the Ministry restarted jury trials in its Durham St courthouse and increased capacity with two multi-jurisdictional, jury-capable courtrooms in a portacom structure on Cambridge Terrace. A centralised scheduling or booking service was also introduced soon after the quakes in order to manage the allocation and optimise the use of temporary courtroom and hearing facilities within Christchurch. How is this different to what happened before? Before the earthquakes, each jurisdiction in Christchurch maintained its own courtrooms and facilities and managed their use. Facilities belonging to another jurisdiction were used on an exceptions basis (eg, a larger courtroom being needed to hear a particular case) and, even then, only when the jurisdiction administering the alternative facility gave permission for this use. Over the last year, temporary court facilities have been managed as shared resources. With a nearly full range of court services being provided from an ever changing number of sites across the city (available venues have ranged from between 13 and 20 in number), coordinating bookings became a matter of necessity. When Ministry of Justice advisor Mark Thompson was initially asked to set up and operate a centralised scheduling system, he anticipated it would be needed for several months. A year later, centralised scheduling remains a key component of ensuring the smooth and efficient operation of justice services in the city. The extraordinary circumstances in Christchurch have required everyone involved in delivering justice services to work together, often under difficult conditions, to maintain essential services and public confidence in the justice system. Those involved include Ministry of Justice, New Zealand Police and Department of Corrections staff as well as members of the Judiciary and local lawyers.

2 While compromises have been made, and not all current arrangements are sustainable longterm, the emergency response has enabled the Ministry of Justice to: Implement and test alternative service-delivery mechanisms to optimise utilisation of court-hearing facilities Trial operating non-custodial District, Youth and other court services closer to user communities Increase the use of technology and apply it in new ways to support the delivery of justice services Work with other justice sector agencies to identify and plan for future service needs, and to ensure that innovative and collaborative ways of working continue. 2. What are the results? The benefits or value to court users and citizens of trialling new approaches to managing the delivery of justice services include: Ability to maintain essential justice services Improved utilisation of capital-intensive court facilities Access to justice services in venues closer to user communities. Maintenance of essential justice services Despite the challenging environment, and some temporary courtroom and hearing spaces being far from ideal, caseloads across most jurisdictions in Christchurch are being maintained at levels comparable to those achieved before the earthquakes. This outcome was initially assisted by lower than usual demand for some services and by extra judicial resources being made available to support a sentencing blitz early in These practices cleared a backlog of cases, and resulted in only 3% more District Court Criminal summary cases on hand in February 2012 than in February Jury trial disposals fell as trials were transferred to other centres in the South Island, returning only in mid-february The transfer of trials was in response to the recognition that Christchurch citizens were in no position to undertake jury service after the earthquakes. Improved utilisation of capital-intensive court facilities Ministry of Justice Canterbury Strategic Recovery Manager, Murray Smith, estimates that before the Christchurch earthquakes, most courtrooms across the city were being used to hear cases on an average 50 to 60% of the available time. For the first few months following the February earthquake, use of temporary courtrooms was averaging 80 to 90% of available time. This percentage has reduced recently as a result of regained access to more courtrooms and of the temporary court building on Cambridge Terrace becoming operational. However, Ministry of Justice staff report that they are currently struggling to find courtrooms for all cases for which Judges are available. According to some staff, this is the first time anyone can remember a shortage of courtrooms in Christchurch. Murray Smith notes that some excess capacity and flexibility relating to the use of available facilities is necessary as part of the Ministry s strategy to be operationally resilient. Further seismic events and ongoing engineering assessments may result in the need to relocate more administration and court facilities. 2

3 Recent thorough investigation has revealed that Aoraki House, which houses the Maori Land Court, needs structural strengthening. This will necessitate moving everyone out of the building. Murray Smith says that, while centralised scheduling and multi-jurisdictional sharing of available courtrooms was introduced out of necessity, Ministry of Justice managers had been considering how to improve courtroom use across the city for some time. To an extent, the earthquakes provided an opportunity to accelerate and test managers plans. Also, it has become relatively common for defendants to change their plea to guilty on arrival at court, meaning a hearing that may have been expected to take several days or weeks does not need to go ahead. In these instances, having back-up trials ready to use courtrooms helps to maximise available space. Judges are leading work with the Ministry, the Crown and Police to increase this practice and improve court use in Christchurch. Courtrooms are significant capital assets; centralised scheduling, shared use of facilities and increased use of technology have resulted in court services being delivered in Christchurch in two thirds of the floor space previously available for court hearings. The Ministry of Justice is evaluating Christchurch s experiences to ensure that innovations and efficiency gains can be captured in joint justice-sector planning directed at meeting future service needs for Christchurch and other New Zealand cities. Access to justice services in venues closer to communities A search for suitable venues to hold Criminal list courts (for first appearances and defendants remanded on bail or at large) led to discussions with the trustees of Nga Hau e Wha National Marae. The discussions led to a proposal to establish a temporary court at the Marae to process the growing backlog of general criminal cases before the District Court. A list court was set up at the Marae in April 2011, and Murray Smith says it is likely the court will continue to operate for some time into the future. Detailed designs are currently being developed to add a courtroom and interview space for the Youth Court and to significantly improve the working environment for staff. As yet, there is lack of clarity on whether benefits are being realised from having hearings in venues that are closer to user communities, such as the Marae. Smith says that, initially, anecdotal evidence suggested some defendants were behaving with more respect and dignity at the Marae than they would have at a courthouse. However, Brendan Paris, a District Court Deputy Registrar based at the Marae, says that security presence has recently been increased following incidents of bad behaviour. It appears that the attitude of defendants at the Marae is now no different from that experienced at the former District Court building. Collaboration between the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Social Development resulted in Community Link, an initiative developed for people and families attending family violence courts around New Zealand. This initiative is being applied within a different context at Nga Hau e Wha. A Ministry of Social Development Community Link worker based at the Marae is focusing on providing help and support relating to work, training, housing and health to youth aged between 17 and 24 attending the court. The Ministry of Justice is currently looking at how duty solicitors and Ministry of Justice staff can be trained to better support the service by increasing the number of referrals to the Community Link worker. 3

4 Continuing to operate justice services at Nga Hau e Wha National Marae provides an important opportunity for the Ministry of Justice to continue trialling new initiatives and to evaluate whether benefits can be realised from operating a more distributed District and Youth Court service closer to user communities. 3. What capability enabled it? Critical success factors in applying new approaches to the delivery of court services include: The willingness of everyone involved in the delivery of court services to collaborate, be flexible, accept difficult conditions and do whatever it takes to get the job done Increased use of technology to deliver justice services Creatively applying existing technology in different contexts or in new ways. Support and collaboration When Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson visited the temporary courthouse at Nga Hau e Wha Marae in early September 2011, he observed that: Keeping the wheels of justice moving in Christchurch is a testament to the passion and resilience of court staff and the unprecedented level of collaboration between Justice, Police and Corrections. I acknowledge that working from interim court facilities, including the Marae, has been challenging, but it s also had some positive benefits, including resulting in courts operating on a multi-jurisdictional basis. 1 Turnover among Ministry of Justice staff in Canterbury before the earthquakes was low. The fact that a high percentage of staff were experienced in their roles, had a good knowledge base and strong relationships with staff in other agencies contributing to justice services, helped them to get services up and running quickly in the quakes aftermath. The Ministry of Justice acknowledges that staff s willingness to cooperate remains critical to ensuring ready access to justice services in Christchurch. The Ministry also recognises that many staff are doing their work under significant pressure and personal stress. Many of the interim venues are cramped, particularly for registry and administration staff, and working conditions are less than optimal overall. The cooperation of Judges and local lawyers has also been essential. Murray Smith notes that Ministry of Justice staff are aware of Judges desire to maintain separate, specialist court facilities. The Judges argue that ensuring the High Court is recognised as separate from the District Court is important for justice not only being done but seeing to be done. In addition, Judges consider that their ability to control the allocation of cases to courtrooms contributes to their ability to control court case-flow and proceedings. In New Zealand, having High Court cases heard in courtrooms separate from those for District Court cases has only ever been possible in Wellington, Christchurch and Auckland. In Christchurch, operating District Court and High Court services from shared courtrooms, including the two temporary courtrooms for jury trials at Cambridge Terrace, has given 1 Ministers visit Nga Hau e Wha Marae courthouse, 5 September

5 Ministry of Justice staff the opportunity to evaluate the difficulties and benefits of operating multi-purpose court facilities. Increased use of technology One of the barriers to operating court and tribunal services from rooms and venues not set up for this purpose is the need to record court proceedings. A critical factor in having court services operational within a week of the February 2011 earthquake was that of quickly training staff to use the systems and mobile evidence-recording technology used by Special Jurisdictions elsewhere in New Zealand. Accepting new, technology-based solutions for recording Criminal court proceedings required flexibility and the goodwill of Judges, lawyers and Ministry of Justice staff. Another barrier to the smooth ongoing operation of justice services in Christchurch is that of storing and transferring physical files across multiple sites. Ministry staff anticipate that work underway within the Ministry to develop and implement an electronic operating model, along with making increased use of audio-visual links, will reduce this barrier. Creatively applying existing technology Centralised calling Immediately after the February 2011 earthquake, all calls to courts in Christchurch were diverted to an 0800 call centre being trialled by the Ministry of Justice in Auckland. The Ministry was conducting the trial to determine if the call centre approach would reduce the number of dropped calls and improve the percentage of enquiries resolved on the first call. If this proved to be the case, centralised call management was to be rolled out to other areas of the country. Centralised call management made an important contribution to providing Christchurch residents with ongoing access to justice services after the earthquakes. Texting Texting provides another example of an existing technology solution being applied in a new way to support the continuation of court services after the February quake. Many defendants provide cellphone numbers to police officers at the time they are charged. In the days immediately following the quake, Ministry of Justice staff worked collaboratively with New Zealand Police to use this information to text court users the date, time and location of their court appearance. To do this, the Ministry also drew on the Datasquirt process used by its Collections business unit to send texts to small or large groups of people to remind them that fine payments are due. Ministry of Justice Criminal Case Flow Manager Phil Miles believes that in the early weeks of operating the Criminal list court at Nga Hau e Wha National Marae, a higher number of defendants turned up on the day of their hearing because they were sent a text reminder one day before their scheduled hearing date. Audio-visual technology Immediately after the earthquake, the Family Court used AV technology to support families where one or more parents had left Christchurch. The use of audio-visual (AV) technology is also being extended and applied in new ways in Christchurch. Prior to the quakes, Auckland courts had been using AV to link up with prisons so people held in remand could appear in court via an AV link. The system used in Auckland is being set up in Christchurch, and wider application of the technology is proposed. 5

6 4. What conditions enabled it? An important enabler to the rapid reinstatement of justice services and trialling of new service delivery approaches was the immediate establishment of a national response team, which was replicated at a local level. The local team were able to focus on implementation and the task at hand, while the national team supported decision-making and access to funding and resources. Having a complementary national structure provided clear communication channels, especially important in the weeks following the earthquake when communication was extensive, with conference calls often occurring twice daily. The dual structure also provided a forum for testing new ideas, challenging existing practice and identifying alternative approaches and solutions. The Ministry of Justice proposes continuing to manage the recovery with teams based in both Wellington and Christchurch. 5. What lies ahead? Having worked together to re-establish justice services in Christchurch, justice sector agencies have also adopted a collaborative approach to determine how services will be delivered in the future. A cross-agency project team is coordinating a sector-wide response to ensure that future plans enable better outcomes to be achieved at reduced capital costs. Planning for the future of justice services in Christchurch is also being integrated with government-wide planning for the recovery and renewal of government services in the city. As part of this process, a justice-sector project team has been established to ensure that innovations developed in Canterbury are being embedded, where it makes sense to do so. The team is also determining if these innovations can be applied more widely within the Ministry of Justice and across the justice sector and, if so, making sure that these too are brought into sector plans. Initiatives such as centralised calling, the shared use of courtrooms and centralised scheduling have proven successful in restoring and maintaining services. They have also delivered efficiencies despite challenging operating environments. Future efforts will build on the practices and processes implemented to help address the unique circumstances that the quakes forced on those involved in delivering justice services and those using them. For more information on Christchurch Innovations go to: August