Phil Bowen
It has stood me in good stead that in my otherwise desk-bound, pontificating career I can say I worked on the frontline in the Bronx Criminal Courthouse in New York. You mean ‘The Bronx is Burning’ Bronx? The ‘Fort Apache’ Bronx? Yup, THAT Bronx.
But more than using it to give the impression of a more hands-on career than I have had, the fourteen months I spent working for Center for Court Innovation’s Bronx Community Solutions project gave me insights into how systems treat people. And these have left a lasting impression on me, even if now my closest court is Blackfriars Crown Court in London.
Those insights are part of the reason why my colleague Stephen Whitehead and I wrote our new publication, ‘Better Courts’. Just as I saw in Bronx, I see people in this country coming into court and they are too often just being processed by the system — a case to be dealt with and a disposition to be made. In the Bronx, we had to deal with the after-effects of that—
The defendant who had a few minutes in front of a court, only to be bewildered by the legalese and without any real input into what may happen to them. It’s what Tom Wolfe describes as the “stupefying tide of tedium and confusion” of the court, in his satire of the Bronx court system, Bonfire of the Vanities.
I see it here too — defendants and victims frustrated by delays and adjournments, feeling like they don’t get a chance to tell their side of the story and often with little agency in what is happening to them. The overall impact is a perception amongst people who go through courts of a system run to resolve cases, not to resolve the issues behind them; a system that prioritises administrative convenience over individual wants and needs.Yet we know that when courts treat people fairly, we not only tend to comply more with our court orders but we perceive that the court has a more legitimate authority. Researchers have identified several critical dimensions to fairness: (1) voice (has the court user’s side of the story been heard?); (2) respect (have the judge, lawyers, and court staff treated them with respect?), (3) neutrality (is the decision making process seen as unbiased and trustworthy?); (4) understanding (can court users comprehend the language used in court and the decisions made?); and (5) helpfulness (are court actors seen as interested in court users’ personal situations to the extent that the law allows?)
And in stressing the importance of ensuring people are treated fairly, we should not confuse the idea of fairness with the idea of mercy. Fairness means being clear about the consequences of failure to follow the rules set down by the court. In arguing for better courts, we also argue for enhanced monitoring of offenders in the community by the court and the application of swift and certain sanctions when offenders breach the rules. Better courts are not only fairer courts but courts which exert their authority.
In arguing for ‘Better Courts’, we are issuing a challenge to practitioners— to treat those coming to court as people, rather than cases. And that applies as much in Blackfriars as it does in the Bronx.