Impact case study database

We engaged with judicial, statutory, regulatory and non-governmental bodies throughout the period we conducted our research, and since, for the purpose of stimulating and informing policy, procedural and practice reform. Key impacts thereby achieved are detailed below.

4.1 Impact on the Leveson Review of Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings (2015)

Jacobson was consulted as part of Leveson’s Review of Efficiency in Court Proceedings (2015) for the Lord Chief Justice. Leveson’s review cited evidence from Out of the Shadows (ii) about the stress caused to court users arising from delays to hearings and associated uncertainties. Leveson incorporated one of our recommendations into his recommendation 30 to improve scheduling of hearings [ Sources to corroborate the impact:1a]. The Government in March 2015 responded by accepting all Leveson’s recommendations in principle [ Sources:1b].

4.2 Impact on judicial training

Judges are trained by their peers at the Judicial College. Inside Crown Court (i) is used in Judicial College training by two course leaders [redacted]. They also ensured Structured Mayhem (iii) was added to the College’s learning management system, and arranged for Jacobson to deliver a lecture on her research to around 50 judges at a Judicial College training course on case and trial management in December 2018 [ Sources:2a,2b]. Approvingly quoting a fellow judge who described it as [redacted] advised that the book has influenced training [redacted] specifically with reference to what it reveals about judicial interactions with court users [ Sources:2c]. [redacted] has repeatedly encouraged attendees at the Judicial College to read the Inside Crown Court. [redacted] The Foreword to the book’s paperback edition, issued in 2016, [redacted] says it ‘ makes a substantial contribution to our understanding of this critical component of the criminal justice system, and provides a great deal of food for thought for all with a professional or general interest in the subject.' [ Sources:2d].

4.3 Impact on advocacy: enhancing training and standards

The Bar Standards Board accepted all the recommendations in our Youth Proceedings Advocacy Review, committing not only to taking regulatory action to improve youth advocacy, but also ‘ to work with other agencies … to address the systemic issues that the report identifies’ [ Sources:3a]

One example of this was the BSB’s work with the Ministry of Justice in relation to the Taylor Review of Youth Justice, the object of which was to consider possible reforms to the youth justice system. The BSB met several times with the Ministry of Justice and Charlie Taylor [ Sources:3b] and when the Taylor review was published in 2016 the BSB noted ‘ The recommendations that the report makes in this regard chime with our own work in this area, following the publication of research we commissioned in November 2015’ [i.e. YPAR *(iv)*] [Sources:3c]. Specifically, YPAR findings informed the Taylor recommendation 22 for mandatory training for all lawyers appearing in the Youth Court [ Sources:3d]. The Government’s response to the Taylor review confirmed that it shared Taylor’s concerns about legal representation in the youth court and welcomed the actions of both the BSB and SRA to improve such training; and advised it would consider if further measures were necessary [ Sources:3d].

The BSB fulfilled its commitment to take regulatory action in light of YPAR’s findings by developing the Youth Proceedings Competences (2017). These detail what is required of barristers working with young defendants and highlight the importance of specialist training. YPAR (iv) is described as ‘ the baseline for the competences’ and recommended ‘ as a further point of reference when engaging with the competences’ [ Sources:4a]. Rule s59.6 of the BSB Handbook now requires barristers to register their competence to undertake youth advocacy; and advises that the BSB may refuse to issue a practising certificate if the required declarations are not made [ Sources:4b].

The Solicitors Regulation Authority issued a consultation Assuring Advocacy Standard in August 2019 which cited findings of Judicial Perceptions of the Quality of Criminal Advocacy (v) amongst the ‘Evidence of standards falling short’ which motivated the review [ Sources:5a]. In its response to the consultation, and reflecting a key finding of Judicial Perceptions (v), the SRA committed to working with the judiciary to support reporting of poor advocacy [ Sources:5b].

The SRA consultation also encompassed a review of youth practitioners’ training needs: citing YPAR’s finding ‘ that advocates were lacking in training in specialist procedures and sentencing powers in the youth courts’, and the associated Taylor Review proposal for mandatory training for youth court advocacy [ Sources:3d]. In its consultation response, the SRA identified a number of measures for enhancing youth advocacy standards, including the monitoring of training records of solicitors practising in the Youth Court [ Sources:5b].

4.4 Informing the activities of NGOs

A number of NGOs have used our courts research to inform policy and practice development, and have built on this research, often in collaboration with us, to advance and promote their law reform agendas.

Out of the Shadows (ii) was the outcome of collaboration with charity Victim Support, who published the report in 2013. As stated on their website, Victim Support use their reports to ‘ make a strong evidence-based case for particular public policy stances’. By highlighting the challenges associated with giving evidence at court, this report has furthered Victim Support’s work to support crime victims and witnesses and campaign for improved provision.

The Criminal Justice Alliance – a coalition of 160 organisations working together and campaigning to create a fairer, more effective criminal justice system – approached us with a request to publish key findings from our Crown Court research, in what became Structured Mayhem (iii). Their motivation in publishing the research was that it addressed a number of themes the organisation had focused on in the past [ Sources:6a].

Our research, including Structured Mayhem (iii) and YPAR (iv), is cited in multiple outputs from research and development NGO the Centre for Justice Innovation, including their written evidence to the 2019 Justice Select Committee inquiry on Court and Tribunal reform [ Sources: 6b]. [redacted] describes the research as [redacted]. He mentions specifically that the research underpins dialogue he and others have had with the courts service regarding court reforms [ Sources:6c].

Jacobson and Kirby made a significant contribution to the work of JUSTICE – the all-party law reform organisation – both through Inside Crown Court (i) and more directly as members of a JUSTICE working party established to identify ways of enhancing court users’ participation. This working party’s report Understanding Courts (2019) describes Inside Crown Court (i) as the ‘starting point’ of its work, citing the book extensively throughout [ Sources:6d]. Understanding Courts presents wide-ranging policy and practice-focused recommendations, and has informed JUSTICE’s submissions to consultations and inquiries. These include the Civil Justice Council consultation on Vulnerable Witnesses and Parties within Civil Proceedings (2019), several recommendations of which are said by JUSTICE to ‘mirror’ those of Understanding Courts [ Sources:6e] and which directly references Understanding Courts to support the claim that many “ vulnerable court users within civil proceedings … would benefit from assistance or protection” [ Sources:6e].

Our collaborations with NGOs have continued through and beyond the current REF period, and have included work as research partner on two separate projects with NGOs. The first, with the Centre for Justice Innovation, was a Nuffield-funded study of problem-solving approaches in the Youth Court, which in late 2020 is already [redacted].The second, with charity Just for Kids Law and funded by the Dawes Trust , will consider the need for interventions to improve the quality of representation and advocacy by criminal solicitors in youth proceedings, building on the work of YPAR (iv).

4.5 Impact on the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee (2015) including production of materials for lay court users

Structured Mayhem (iii) was the basis of a presentation in 2015 by Jacobson to the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, chaired by the Lord Chief Justice and responsible for the rules governing the management of criminal cases [ Sources:7a]. [redacted] was particularly keen to consider recommendations to amend the Criminal Procedure Rules to reflect concerns raised in S tructured Mayhem (iii); for example whether changes should be made to the time limits which apply when making applications for special measures [ Sources:7b].

[redacted] later cited Structured Mayhem (iii) as demonstrating the need for more accessible written materials for court users. Addressing concerns identified in Structured Mayhem about the complexity of legal language, the Committee, in tandem with Ministry of Justice-based consultative group the Defendant Voice Engagement Panel (of which Jacobson is a member), produced ‘easy-read’ forms for lay people attending the criminal courts.