IMPROVING PRACTICE
CHAPTER 19 POSTSCRIPT
19.1 I have tried to devise a coherent scheme to bring greater certainty into the criminal trial process, and to reduce the inconvenience and distress caused to the public. I have produced an outline. The detailed development and implementation of these proposals, or any other proposals that emerge from any further consultation, will require considerable thought and work. Depending upon the extent to which these proposals are implemented, the existing rules of criminal procedure will require extensive revisal.
19.2 I have not been in a position to try to cost the proposals, and assess the full resource implications. In any event, these depend upon a number of variables. It must also be recognised that the successful operation of the scheme will hinge largely upon its success in identifying the cases which can be disposed of without a trial diet being assigned, particularly by those where the accused will plead guilty. Should this scheme, or a similar one, be introduced, its operation should be closely monitored so that any adjustments necessary to secure its successful introduction are identified and implemented.
19.3 In order to assess how effectively and efficiently any system is working, it is necessary that accurate records should be kept. Certain information on the throughput of business of the High Court is currently available, but it is not easily accessible. The forthcoming introduction in Justiciary Office of a computerised system for the registration of cases will assist in providing better information. A robust management information system should form an integral part of that computer system, which should supply reports containing sufficient details to ensure that any areas of the Court's operations which are not as efficient or effective as they should be are identified and addressed quickly. The Principal Clerk of Session and Justiciary should agree with the Lord Justice General the critical factors to be recorded, and should provide him with regular reports.
19.4 There should be a High Court Standing Advisory or User Group, similar to one that presently exists for Glasgow High Court, consisting of representatives of the various elements or bodies that work within and serve the Court, whose remit would be to review the work of the High Court regularly and advise on changes in procedure that would improve the arrangements for the conduct of proceedings. It should be chaired by a High Court judge.
19.5 By these two means any scheme introduced would be kept under review, to ensure that its objectives are achieved, and that it does not become simply another expensive layer of procedure that does not improve the efficiency of the High Court.