The London Borough of Dagenham v. SG & Ors(2014)

[leclerc]

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2004/3761.html

This case is where the judge refused to deliver a verdict due to a lack of slack within the family division.

The quote specific was as follows: "The difficulty is that Parliament and the government have said that all these cases must be dealt with rapidly and without delay but, unfortunately, have failed to supply the necessary resources, in this instance judicial resources.”

[Amethyst]

Re: The London Borough of Dagenham v. SG & Ors(2014)

Harsh on those involved in the case, but the absolute truth.

All the advocates have, of course, expressed horror at the prospect of a delay of several months until probably February of next year. I wish to say as strongly as I possibly can that I share that horror. The difficulty is that Parliament and the government have said that all these cases must be dealt with rapidly and without delay but, unfortunately, have failed to supply the necessary resources, in this instance judicial resources. I have already personally discussed with the Clerk of the Rules whether there is a possibility of this case being heard within the next two months or so, and she satisfies me that currently that is simply impossible. Judges work to itineraries. Many judges of the Family Division are out on circuit at any given time, or dealing with other work, such as the work of the administrative court. Currently, one judge of the division is about to be removed on promotion to the Court of Appeal. Another judge of the division has unexpected health problems. But the system is not resourced to provide for any elasticity or slack to cope with these difficulties. I understand that, although it has been known for a number of months that there would be a vacancy due to the promotion of a judge to the Court of Appeal, no competition has yet been started to identify a replacement judge. These, I am afraid, are just practical realities and imperatives. I may have a theoretical power to direct that this case must be heard at a given time or in a given window; but, realistically, if I were to exercise that power it would simply mean other cases concerning other needy children being taken out of the list. I cannot responsibly do that. I can only work within the resources that I am told are available.

So, sympathetic though I am to the request that I should fix a much earlier date for final hearing, it just does not seem to me that I realistically can do so. I am prepared to say that if, unexpectedly, a significant vacancy occurs in the lists, for instance as a result of another long case settling or otherwise being adjourned, then that slot might be offered to this case.