Consumer advocates say interests of court users must be seen in reforms

SCOTLAND'S consumer advocates are weighing in today in support of the Gill Review of the Scottish Civil Courts. They will tell a Legal Services Agency/SCOLAG Conference, "The Gill Review: Changing the structure of Civil Courts in Scotland for the next generation", that the interests of court users should be at the heart of the proposed reforms.

Consumer Focus Scotland (CFS) will unveil its own response to the Gill Review at the conference, highlighting the areas it believes should be priorities for reform to make the civil justice system user-friendly, affordable and accessible for users who need to enforce their rights and settle disputes.

Sarah O'Neill, head of policy and a solicitor at Consumer Focus Scotland, says: "Most of us will use the civil justice system at some point in our lives. For many their interaction with it will be difficult and unwelcome because of the stressful issues they are dealing with.

"Whether facing a divorce or a dispute over access or residence of children, debt recovery, a consumer dispute or a housing problem, the public's experience of the civil justice system has too often been that it doesn't properly support them to resolve their dispute in the most appropriate way, at the appropriate time.

She adds: "The present system focuses too much on the needs of the professional users of the system, such as solicitors, advocates and judges, rather than those of the ultimate users, those who become involved in civil disputes.

"We believe that implementing the steps set out in this report would give Scotland the user-friendly, affordable and accessible civil justice system that consumers desperately need in the 21st century."

In its report, Making civil justice work for consumers, CFS proposes a four-step approach to removing barriers to access to justice: a public legal education strategy; joined-up and appropriate advice services; emphasis on informal means of resolving disputes; and more user-friendly formal dispute resolution processes.

The report suggests that Scotland is lagging most jurisdictions in "public legal education". If consumers are to be able to access legal services and make informed choices about which services best meet their needs, they need to be able first to recognise they have a problem then recognise the problem has a potential legal remedy and then identify a course of action to pursue that remedy whether it be taking action themselves or seeking help from an appropriate source.

"Research suggests, however, that these stages are very difficult for consumers to navigate and many fail to reach the help that is available to them or reach it only once their problems have escalated … we therefore strongly endorse the recommendation in the civil courts review that public legal education should form part of any access to justice strategy."

In terms of improving "joined-up advice and appropriate advice services", the CFS report calls on the Scottish Government to implement the full range of powers given to the Scottish Legal Aid Board under the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. It says: "Allowing advice agencies to be funded through legal aid would be an important way of increasing access and choice for consumers."

It also recommends that more research should be undertaken exploring options for funding for advice and litigation, including contingency fees, before the event insurance and after the event insurance.

Separately today, consumer group Which? is publishing the results of a survey into the extent of public knowledge of the existing arrangements for settling minor disputes, particularly the small claims court, and how they could be improved.

The findings, based on interviews with 1,011 members of the public, reveal that more than half would be put off using a solicitor or legal adviser because of the likely cost. Nearly eight in ten (79 per cent) would like to have the option of accessing less formal "problem solving" courts where they could get redress without using a lawyer. Just over eight in ten (83 per cent) would prefer such disputes to be dealt with in a relatively informal forum with no wigs and gowns.

With respect to the small claims courts, barely half of those surveyed (52 per cent) were even aware of the system. Of those who were aware of the small claims courts, less than 5 per cent had ever used them.

Only 6 per cent of those interviewed were aware of the 3,000 ceiling for claims under the small claims procedure, though when advised of it there was a majority for raising the ceiling to 5,000 as presently in place in England.

Finally, more than four out of 10 (45 per cent) supported the proposition that courts should be open for business after work Monday to Friday with a third indicating support for Saturday court opening.

Principal public affairs officer for Which?, Julia Clarke, says: "I think the findings show how important it is to change the climate within legal services in terms of what they are there to do.

"Lord Gill described it as, 'Changing the mindset of the profession'. From our perspective the point of the civil courts review isn't just to reorganise responsibilities between existing courts or create new specialisms but to remind everybody involved in the process of reform they should be thinking what it's like from the user's point of view."

She concludes: "There are problems and disputes that need to be resolved but many people are too scared to go near the courts. But if they just disappear many in the legal establishment therefore can see no problem. That's not right in a modern society."