Working to keep the Courts in Southport

The proposed closure of both the Magistrates and County Courts in Southport has been in the news recently and the consultation on this closed at 5pm yesterday.  Your Liberal Democrat Team are very concerned about the planned move of our court service to Bootle and Liverpool as we believe it will have a detrimental effect on access to local justice.  Both John Pugh MP and myself have met with a number of solicitors and the court users group to try and respond to the consultation.

Some residents feel that it will only effect those people who are defendants and so travelling out of Southport may not be a bad thing however I believe that the impact of the proposed closure will be much wider.

The following text has been submitted as my response as Liberal Democrat Ward Councillor for the Magistrates Court to the consultation.

Arguments against the closure of both the Magistrates and the County Courts of Southport

The consultation document makes it very clear that cost savings and under utilisation of the current Magistrates court are the main reasons behind the proposed closure in Southport. However both of these reasons must be considered in the wider context of direct and indirect impact to the Court Service in the future.

The information contained with the consultation document lays out in very broad brush terms the supposed benefits of moving the whole court provision in Southport to Bootle and Liverpool however this approach overlooks much of the detail which, when considered, undermines the proposed closure and move of the courts from Southport.

Proposed Cost Savings

Southport currently has both a Magistrates Court and a County Court which operate out of separate locations. It would make most logical sense if the two courts were operated out of one location. This would in the long term provide a cost saving which would meet one of the key criteria for closure. Although there will be an initial capital cost to this move this would be offset in the long term by the reduced overhead costs of the second site on Houghton Street quoted in the Consultation document as £162,819 annually and remove the need for maintenance of £50,000.

Improved Utilisation

The co-location would also increase the usage of the court building which would meet the second key criteria of utilisation. The Magistrates Court has more than enough capacity to support co-location with a separate entrance with lift access available. In fact the consultation document clearly states that the Magistrates Court has vacant space on the ground floor and at least one free court room.

A previous attempt to co-locate the two courts is referred to in the consultation paper but insufficient detail is given on this as to the full reason for refusal. The Court Users Group did attempt to get an updated costing for possible co-location of the two courts however access to the Magistrate's court building was prevented by HMRC. Again it is impossible to make a reasoned decision if inadequate up to date information is not available for in-depth consideration.

Southport County Court is acknowledged within the consultation document as being open five days a week with 1.5 judges sitting which equates to 7.5 days of court time. This level of work must raise concerns regarding the proposed move to Liverpool Family Court. No details are given as to how the current court timetable at Liverpool Family Court will be managed to accommodate the additional timetable of a full time court in Southport.

As a final point on co-location, the consultation document refers to the fact that the Magistrates Court is joined the the police station. In fact this connection goes further with both premises accessing a shared heating system. The close proximity of the the police station and the neighbouring fire station would make this purpose built court house unattractive as a possible development site in future and would ultimately leave HMRC with an on-going financial commitment to a large unused building.

Increased risk of mistrials

The current legal system has an on-going issue with mistrials and trials falling through, the cost of which is increasing annually. By moving both courts from Southport there is an almost guaranteed probability that the number of mistrials will increase. The additional travel time for defendants, witnesses and/or claimants will have a direct impact on the outcome of many trails with many of these people choosing simply not to attend court.

Specific attention must be given to the demographics of Southport. The town has one of the largest populations of over 65 in the UK with this set to increase in the future as Southport is, and markets itself as, a destination to retire. Having a population which has a predominance of people over 65 does however bring with it associated issues one of which is the fear of crime. With the removal of the court services it may well be that witnesses will be forced to travel on the same train as the defendant or the defendants family. The Northern Line trains which link Southport to Bootle and Liverpool are modern walk through carriages which allow free movement of passengers. It is quite possible to see witnesses leaving the train if faced with the possibility of travelling with the defendant or defendants family. In many cases it may be that the witnesses chose not to testify at all rather than face any chance of possible intimidation. Similar arguments can also be made in the cases of domestic violence and family court cases.

To draw a further conclusion from the above it could be that Southport becomes a destination for criminals as it becomes known that witnesses are not likely to testify.

Economic Impact

Southport as a town is the 14^th biggest population centre in the North West. The presence of the courts here have allowed a large number of solicitor practices to open in the town (approx. 30) which supports the local economy. This support is not only in terms of solicitors employed but also in terms of support staff and in the wider context of local shops, cafés and restaurants. If the courts move to Bootle and Liverpool there is every likelihood that the accompanying legal firms will also be forced to move which would have a direct impact on the economic viability of the town. This may be a longer term issue but one that must be considered as part of the initial decision.

Conclusion

Whilst everyone understands the need for cost reductions, they also recognise that when important decision are made which effect a large number of people those decisions must be made with access to all the facts and relevant details including:

• 
  
  capital/revenue and on-going maintenance costs,
• 
  
  operational details of not only the courts threatened with closure but also the courts set to receive their workload,
• 
  
  the direct and indirect impact on the local community
• 
  
  and finally the right of everyone for access to local justice.

“Penny wise, pound foolish”

Councillor Sue McGuire

Cambridge Ward, Southport,

Metropolitan Borough of Sefton