Tag: lawyer blog

Posted on

The Biggest Sensitive Personal Data Loss in NHS History.

Currently the scandal around COVID-19 and the supply of contracts for PPE to friends of Conservative Party MP’s and Tory party donors hangs over Britain like an unpleasant smell.

But there’s a similar NHS procurement scandal with a somewhat longer history. This shows that – if anything – lessons are never learned which it comes to NHS outsourcing. The fast and cheap route is often the chosen path and this leads to incalculable consequences for individual patients.

TPP – or The Phoenix Partnership as they are otherwise styled – are a company based in Horsforth, Leeds and provide computer systems and software for GP’s surgeries in the British NHS.

Their website claims that their systems assist in:

increasing efficiency, driving innovation and empowering patients.

…all of which is the usual marketing hot air.

The standard package sold to surgeries is an error-riddled piece of software called SystmOne. This is used by about a third of GP practices in England and holds the records of million of patients.

The present incarnation of this software was introduced in 2012 The Information Commissioner’s Office, the public body concerned with protection of individuals data, has long had concerns about the quality of the software and its ability to protect the sensitive personal data of patients.

A series of coding errors on SystmOne caused – from 2017 onwards – an incredibly significant and serious data loss.

Pictured is TPP founder Frank Hester with former PM David Cameron. Hester has been a part of trade missions led by Cameron and former MP Kenneth Clarke. Hester himself was awarded an OBE – tellingly at about the same time his company was managing to loose the sensitive personal data of some 140,000 people. Tellingly following the revelation of the scandal he has not seen fit to hand this OBE back.

TPP’s parent company made £9.1m operating profit on £48.5m sales in 2015-16. This was concurrent with the data error discussed in this article and the company has more than £56.2m net assets making it easily worth £100m. That the company cannot summon the resources to then produce software which enables GP’s surgeries to keep patient data confidential is quite astonishing.

There have been concerns with the security of data from TPP software even before the knowledge of 140,000 patient’s records being shared became public.

Here’s an extract from an article from Digital Health, dated May 2017. This is around a year before TPP saw fit to inform NHS Digital of the poor quality of its product and the consequences of this. The full article can be seen at www.digitalhealth.net/2017/03/hester-hits-back-over-tpp-data-security-concerns

It states:

“…it comes as the BMA wades into the increasingly murky debate over who controls access to the GP records of millions of patients.”

“The doctor’s trade union is now calling on the thousands of GPs using TPP’s SystmOne electronic record to “urgently consider any action they need to take”, including switching off the system’s “enhanced data sharing function”.
“It has become clear that if patient records are being shared through TPP… GPs are unable to specify which other organisations can have access to their patients’ records”

“Some media have reported [www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/security-breach-fears-26-million-nhs-patients/] that it allowed patient records to be viewed by “thousands of strangers” not involved in their care. TPP has disputed these claims, stating that patients records cannot be accessed without their permission, except in emergencies.

Around 12 months later the errors caused by TPP failing to construct their software correctly led to some 140,000 persons having their personal medical data shared without their consent. This amounted to the biggest data loss in NHS history.

Not that it takes a coding error alone for SystmOne to share your data. If you do not explicitly opt out of having your data shared then the software will enable potentially thousands of third parties to be able to access your patient records.

Often this means that such data is shared with American organisations who pay the NHS for bulk healthcare data. In short then unless you explicitly tell your surgery not to share your data then SystmOne will automatically monetise your data to share with third parties for which the NHS will be paid. It takes an enquiry with NHS Digital to discover exactly who has had access to your data. No doubt your surgery and the NHS overall would rather you didn’t know about the monetisation of your sensitive personal data.

No wonder that in the 2017 article in Digital Health we can see Hester fighting tooth and nail to prevent any restrictions on TPP products being able to share patient data with third parties!

Now to focus back on the issue of the major data loss.

In respect of the 140,000 persons whose data was share against their express wishes the following was said in The House of Commons on 2 July 2018 by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health who issued a statement to Parliament in which she said:

“NHS Digital recently identified a supplier defect in the processing of historical patient objections to the sharing of their confidential health data. An error occurred when 150,000 Type 2 objections set between March 2015 and June 2018 in GP practices running TPP’s system were not sent to NHS Digital. As a result, these objections were not upheld by NHS Digital in its data disseminations between April 2016, when the NHS Digital process for enabling them to be upheld was introduced, and 26 June 2018. This means that data for these patients has been used in clinical audit and research that helps drive improvements in outcomes for patients.”

“Since being informed of the error by TPP, NHS Digital acted swiftly and it has now been rectified. NHS Digital made the Department of Health and Social Care aware of the error on 28 June. NHS Digital manages the contract for GP Systems of Choice on behalf of the Department of Health and Social Care.”

She went on to say…

“TPP has apologised unreservedly for its role in this matter and has committed to work with NHS Digital so that errors of this nature do not occur again. This will ensure that patients’ wishes on how their data is used are always respected and acted upon.”

“NHS Digital will write to all TPP GP practices today to make sure that they are aware of the issue and can provide reassurance to any affected patients. NHS Digital will also write to every affected patient. Patients need to take no action and their objections are now being upheld.”

“There is not, and has never been, any risk to patient care as a result of this error. NHS Digital has made the Information Commissioner’s Office and the National Data Guardian for Health and Care aware.”

The full text of the statement can be found at:

www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2018-07-02/HCWS813

On discover of this – the largest data loss in NHS history – The Information Commissioner’s Office immediately sprang into action. And as expected did nothing. This is par for the course for ICO.

At present it is not known what the commercial relationship between TPP and NHS Digital may comprise. Therefore it cannot be said if one has indemnified the other from the consequences of data losses. This may be why ICO fails to act.

Look at the extracts below from a letter sent from ICO to NHS Digital. As far as I’m aware this is the first publication of this document in any media:

All of tale of failure is par for the course in modern Britain.

Shoddy companies such as TPP gain contracts for services to the public sector but produce shoddy work. When errors happen it’s a “learning experience” for all concerned rather than one in which heads roll. Supervisory organisations such as ICO fail to act as appropriate. And the gravy train keeps on running!

Posted on

The Post-Truth Society

We have now become a society in which many people are lacking in the ability to use basic critical faculties regarding information they receive. Because of this they are more prepared to align their thinking with narrow, sectional interests.

These people can then be persuaded to perform activities which go against their own best interests and those of our wider society.

How has this happened and what purpose does the spread of disinformation and outright lies serve, particularly those in relation to COVID-19?

Funded by the sinister and obeyed by the stupid. An example of a type of sticker seen lots recently in our urban areas.

Disinformation comes like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It often seeks to persuade from a standpoint of “us against them”, as the above image shows. The two stickers above start by putting their arguments by claiming they are on the side of the people against the Government. This is palpably not true. In a situation in which there is a lethal pandemic the interests of the people are to protect themselves and those around them from the spread of the virus. Neither of these stickers promote this. They are actively against it and so to do as the first sticker suggests puts yourself and others at direct risk of harm. The second seeks to re-inforce the first by suggesting that the Government information on the pandemic is incorrect without stating what part is wrong. It’s there to build an atmosphere of mistrust to reinforce the message of the first sticker. And film director Ken Loach would also like his royalties for the misuse of the image.

Much of the anti-mask, “virus is a conspiracy theory” set have a series of narrow sectional interests that coincide with letting the virus rip through society. Thus they are not interested in your or my personal freedom. Claims that they are marching against the “new world order”, microchip implantation via vaccination and half a dozen other fabricated falsehoods are hooks to pull in the gullible into acting against their own best interests and starting up a culture war. If they were campaigning for freedom then there are plenty of existing worthy campaigns they could join to increase the freedom of action in society. Those run by groups such as Liberty spring to mind.

Being vaccinated is a pro-social act which actually does increase freedom. For a start the freedom not to be infected with a potentially lethal virus. Vaccination may not help you but it may stop others around you being infected. It is the apex of how society should reasonably operate: a partnership in which you take care of my interests and I take care of yours. Likewise wearing a mask in public places reduces the spread of COVID-19. This is also a pro-social act that helps everyone in society by stopping / slowing the rate of infection until the forthcoming vaccinations are widely taken up.

At present there are sufficient dark forces looking to destabilise society.

These amount to the usual ragbag of far left and far right groups, alongside our old chums the obstreperous and the contrarians who automatically are against whatever you might happens to be in favour of or any reasonably held consensus. These are operating alongside foreign powers who seek to destabilise western societies for their own ends. I suspect the stickers such as that seen in the image above are paid for and posted by such persons or else home-grown eugenics enthusiasts who have an honest (though morally repugnant) belief in survival of the fittest. None of these people have yours or my best interests at heart and they seek to persuade people to act against their own interests via a variety of underhanded means.

There was a time when such as vaccines etc. were understood to be a positive force: they enabled hundreds of millions of people to live without the fear of communicable and life-changing diseases such polio.

However thirty years of (1) a dumbed down eduction system (2) a media – especially newspapers – that prioritise showbiz news over critical analysis and readership engagement with the real world (3) social media allowing a slow-drip feed of misinformation and outright lies (4) Prior exposure by investigative journalists of genuine abuses of power which lend weight to the idea that there are further, hidden abuses of power happening beyond what we presently know about. I would add also (5) that the inept and incompetent handling of the pandemic by the UK Goverment has been sufficiently poor as to assist and promote misinformation about the virus and Government intentions. It is quite believable that COVID-19 is being allowed to spread through poor areas just like it was through nursing homes.

All these things have led to a position in which conspiracy theories such as those abounding around COVID-19 have fertile soil. They allow the sectional interest groups I have mentioned above to have a stronger foothold whereas many years ago they would have been confined to the crank fringes. If – as in happier times – the only means of getting your crackpot theories out into the world amounts to hand-printed leaflets and a sandwich board your theories won’t go far enough to harm others.

Harmful, unscientific and morally reprehensible ideas around COVID-19 are being freely disseminated. These are wrapped up in conspiracy theories in which the Government, Big Science and (in the USA at least) the “deep state” are said to be acting from sinister motives. These ideas promote a narrative in which persons acting against medical and scientific advice are seen to be expressing their individual freedoms in defiance of the state. This is simply wrong.

A conspiracy theory is a comforting thing: it offers a catch-all explanation for one or more of the wrongs of the world. Belief in such a conspiracy theory ennobles the believer with a sense of access to some secret knowledge or insight into how the world works; which does account for how difficult it is to prise people away from such theories once they start to head down one or more of the bizarre cul-de-sacs that conspiracy theories represent. It’s difficult to wean someone off a conspiracy theory as it requires the afflicted person admitting they were wrong and have had the wool pulled over their eyes.

People are prepared to believe all sorts of odd conspiracy theories but fail to see actual and genuine efforts to deprive them of their rights, money and liberty. The current UK scandal over sourcing of PPE equipment via lucrative contracts by the UK Government to Tory party donors and friends is a real-life conspiracy which has been ongoing since March 2020. Protests in the streets against this scandal: zero.

Conclusion: at least in part many people are being drawn to crackpot theories spun to create chaos and destabilise society via a variety of means. In worrying times people cling onto extreme views which seem to present a catch-all explanation for problems. That these ideas gain ground when people are unable to critically assess the sources of information they are presented with and the reasons they are being persuaded to act in a specific way.

Posted on

“Accessing Police Systems for an Improper Purpose”

Humberside Police are one of those forces that you wonder how they get away with it.

Largely hidden away from the rest of the country on the edges of East Yorkshire they have a reputation every bit as unwholesome as other local forces.

One reason they do seem to get away with it is both geographical distance from the rest of the UK and of course lack of proper oversight. Their perennially ineffective Police and Crime Commissioner Keith Hunter recently showed the level of consideration he has for the local pubic by manhandling a visitor asking perfectly reasonable questions out of his office. As a former officer himself old habits die hard.

The PCC’s behaviour is of course equal to the contempt for the public shown by the force itself in such matters as inadequate custody suites which – on the basis of the last inspection reports I read – were shockingly poor, particularly in regards to the welfare of young people held in custody.

But while holding the public largely in contempt officers can expect lavish prize ceremonies at The Humber Bridge Country Park Hotel, a venue synonymous with chicken in a basket style meals and budget wedding ceremonies. These police awards stem from the days the force were in a Chief Constable-less mess which almost ended up with them being put into special measures. Handing out cut glass awards helped to boost the morale of the troops, albeit on a temporary basis. Clearly no gongs were forthcoming from any other source at that time and so the force decided to award gongs to themselves.

The days in which the force almost ended up in special measures still hang heavily over Humberside Police. The epithet “Where we do what we want” has seldom applied more to a UK force in modern times, Met Police excepted. Overall in those days and to a lesser extent now Humberside officers still tend to do what they want.

The consequence to all of this is that quite a number of officers from Humberside Police end up before their Professional Standards Department and such hearings now appear to be increasing in frequency. This suggests an increasing breakdown in internal discipline and operational effectiveness that needs to be addressed urgently.

Of course PSD generally tend to go for the low hanging fruit which means the officers most likely to be prosecuted are PC’s caught slacking off, pulling a sickie or whose face doesn’t appear to fit around the station. Occasionally officers are thrown to the wolves just so PSD can appear to be exercising some form of oversight. The more serious miscreants and offenders further up the slippery ladder are ignored. In the modern police force assistance over cover-ups are rewarded with promotion and rocking the boat by sacking someone who knows “where the bodies are buried”, metaphorically speaking of course, has the potential to bring the whole house of cards tumbling down.

So this recent case seen directly below reminded me of a well-publicised matter from a few years back – which is still a shocker – which I will discuss in a short while.

Busted!

As you can see the basic charge is that this PC has been passing confidential police information on to criminals. Guaranteed this data will have been specifically requested by Ronnie and Reggie, will be of considerable use to said criminals and there will have been a payment involved somewhere down the line. That’s the way these things work.

Police databases include something called the PND or Police National Database. This is a huge wealth of half-truth, rumour and suspicion which will have entries on just about any person who has come into contact with the police for any purpose. Unlike the Police National Computer which must be accurate (containing as it does details of convictions, cautions etc.) the PND can contain outright unsupported rumours, slurs and spite.

Do please bear in mind you have no right of access to whatever falsehoods might be stored on the PND about you: although you can make a request for all the data uploaded by an individual force about you to PND. You then have a legal right of correction of the same.

Which brings us back round to Humberside Police.

As we’ve already seen there’s a tendency in the force to dip into and out of police systems for officer’s own benefit. Any access to PNC or PND is logged however so anyone doing so is easy to locate. Officers dipping into databases for their own curiosity or benefit tend to forget this.

Which brings us to DC Julian McGill.

Busted! Again.

The report above isn’t the full story as there’s been several instances of computer misuse from this officer over the years. This resulted in a final written warning and the hearing described below in which his career was on the line:

Believable? You decide!

McGill at the time was serving as part of the local Police Federation. A fact that will have of course been unlikely to influence the position of the misconduct panel in any way! Generally gross misconduct results in only one outcome and since the offending act was admitted (he could hardly deny it given his access was logged) the decision of the panel was very much at odds with the seriousness of the offence.

However this all ties into my original premise that Humberside Police – situated away from prying eyes – seek to do what they like. Accessing police databases for their own use is simply one part of this and the brushing aside of an instance of gross misconduct is a further example.

Posted on

The Soaring Ascendant

Yesterday one of my cases was assessed and received judgment from Mr. Justice Warby, who just last week delivered an initial appraisal of the Coleen Rooney v. Rebekah Vardy case which is presently before him.

More on that matter and the outcome of the initial hearing in Rooney v. Vardy can be seen in the official judgment published at https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Vardy-v-Rooney-judgment.pdf

Sir Mark David John Warby, styled The Hon. Mr Justice Warby

As one might expect based on his reputation the judgement in my claim was incisive, carefully worded and hit all the correct notes.

It makes something of a change to deal with a judge who is focused on the best and most natural route for a case in line with the Overriding Objectives as opposed to the way some more local judiciary handle cases!

In March 2017 Mr. Justice Warby was appointed Judge in Charge of the Media and Communications List and is to be appointed to The Court of Appeal from 2021.

Posted on

“Cuffing” or “Shonking” at South Yorkshire Police.

In modern police parlance “cuffing off” a job means to look for a way to avoid dealing with a complaint about a crime made by a member of the public. Shonking means the same thing. South Yorkshire Police is very much focused on internal award ceremonies for its staff and members of the public calling to report criminal offences gets in the way of this. Most inconvenient.

So here’s the story. I had an offence to report on the basis of information that came my way. Having researched the offence and charging guidelines for the same as well as collated sufficient documents to show who was responsible and how I completed the South Yorkshire Police online form. This is their preferred way of contacting you. And so I waited for contact back. And waited. And waited.

Eventually a series of phone calls were made on one afternoon to South Yorkshire Police via 101. The poor handling of the initial report from the webform data and subsequent poor handling of all subsequent contacts are described below.

Basically the webform was ignored. Phone calls to check on the progress of the report of a crime were also consistently mishandled.

From the 1980’s to the present day SYP is mired in scandal.

The basic issues are as follows:

1. A complaint of a crime was made. This was done via the online form for such. That the response from the online form took longer than the 72 hours the website states for any action to be taken in respect of the referral of a crime.

2. That the online form had still not been processed some 7 days later.

This amount to the first effort to “shonk” the job.

3. That from comments made by Professional Standards Dept. at SYP in a later email to me it would appear that this online referral has been “lost”.

4. Following the lack of response to the webform a series of phone calls were made by me on the Tuesday and Wednesday to SYP to establish what was happening in relation to the online referral.

5. That these calls were either cut off when transferred to the appropriate department or else rang out for an exceptionally long period. The time it took to get through to someone was the time of my journey that day from West Yorkshire to Bridlington on the East Yorkshire coast. Some one hour and fifteen minutes.

6. That on eventually speaking to an officer he stated that he had no copy of the online form in front of him but proceeded to dismiss the referral of a crime being committed on the basis that this incident was not a crime and therefore not something that police would deal with.

This is incorrect. I quoted CPS guidance and sentencing guidelines that clearly show the activity reported was a criminal offence.

Most police officers have a very poor working knowledge of the law and are often the worst people to decide if an offence falls into their jurisdiction or not. Or if an offence has been committed in law. Without sight of evidence etc. the officer was additionally on very shaky ground.

7. That the same officer rang me back several minutes later. He had performed a search on my name after our initial conversation and my refuting his comments that the matter complained of was not an offence in law.

8. That his call back to me amounted to harassment and intimidation. His manner during this second call was offensive, uncivil and harassing. Having tried to “cuff / shonk the job off” only to be confronted by a member of the public who knew the law put his fragile and delicate nose out of joint.

Most police officers have exceptionally fragile egos and cannot bear not to have the last word on something. As sites such as the exceptional. ://crimebodge.com show (especially I would recommend their YouTube channel) this can often lead to violence and assault from the officer if a member of the public stands their ground.

9. That the officer concerned did this solely for the purpose of causing harassment, vexation and distress. On the second call he refused to give his name or service number when asked which is usually indicative of an officer misconducting himself. South Yorkshire Police have plenty of form for this. Ask the miners who were at The Battle of Orgreave: SYP removed their epaulets displaying service numbers so they couldn’t be subject of individual complaints.

South Yorkshire Police are internationally famous for violence and criminal negligence.

That overall the standard of conduct in relation to this matter was sufficient to cause loss of professional reputation, such as it is, for the force. Overall the behaviour described above gave the impression of South Yorkshire Police as being inept, incompetent and evasive.

Later that day is I rang again. This time to make a formal complaint. The College of Policing Code of Ethics has a series of guidelines which had each been breached in the police’s handling of this matter. Not least of these are those related to courtesy and respect. https://www.college.police.uk/What-we-do/Ethics/Documents/Code_of_Ethics.pdf

I was told I would be called back in a few days. However again there was no response.

This matter relates to the following issues in the College of Policing Code of Ethics:

1. Authority, respect and courtesy.

2. Duties and responsibilities.

3. Conduct.

I emailed Professional Standards Department at South Yorkshire Police a few weeks later. The response was initially in terms of my complaint call of a few weeks earlier and stated:

Unfortunately, we are unsure as to who the officer was who spoke with you…

This suggests that the admin systems at South Yorkshire Police are not robust enough or else that they’ve already tried to evade examination of the complaint in the same way as they avoided examination of the original report of a crime. The comment is also vague: do they mean the misconducting officer I spoke to at around around lunchtime or the one spoken to to enter the complaint at 18:30 on the same day?

But it gets worse:

In relation to the online complaint form this does not a appear to have been received by us.

So an additional copy was attached to the response. Neither the original web form reporting a criminal offence nor the complaint form sent by email were received by the force. How many others have been similarly missed by them?

By this point some three weeks had elapsed since this complaint form was sent in to Professional Standards Department and their sobriquet was looking further and further misapplied. The South Yorkshire Police webform auto-generates a copy of the complaint for the public so it is unlikely that a copy was not sent to PSD. The comments they made about not receiving a copy are likely bunkum.

They stated:

If you would like to reply to this email with your initial complaint, we will pass it for assessment and ask our assessors to look into it asap.

So this created a further issue to the complaint: that failure to record the initial complaint call made around 18.30hrs in the evening to SYP via 101 amounts to a further breach of duty. A copy of this call will have been recorded on the Airwave system, which records all incoming and outgoing calls from police stations.

The failure to properly action the issues raised by phone in the evening call amounts to an effort to evade dealing with the complaint from an early stage. The “loss” of the follow up complaint form to PSD is a further effort in this direction.

Matters have now been before Professional Standards Department at South Yorkshire Police for two months without visible progress.

The whole fiasco makes SYP look doubly incompetent in their behaviour in failing to action the original webform, then “cuffing off” the job on the phone.

Then they fail to record and action the complaint made from 18:30hrs on the same day and further claim a follow up communication on the complaint was “lost”.

Heaven help people who actually live in South Yorkshire when it comes to reporting crime or making a complaint to SYP. Because the force’s systems are clearly set up to avoid having to deal with either.

Posted on

Sharp Practice Filling the Coffers at HMCTS

The service user is a cash cow to HMCTS

HMCTS has a number of ways of obtaining money from court users. Some of these amount to sharp practice and although within the Civil Procedure Rules can also be said to amount to an abuse of process.

Yesterday I discussed how difficult it is to obtain a refund from HMCTS (with an example!). Today I look at one of the ways they increase costs for parties.

Here’s one of the ways this happens.

An application in a civil claim was cancelled with a few days notice.

This is because the High Court Judge set to hear the case, The Hon. Mr Nicholas Lavender, decided to scuttle back to London before Yorkshire and the North East Circuit (for which he is senior civil judge) was put into tier three COVID restrictions. In the event this was pointless as a few days later the Government decided to lockdown the whole of England. However this caused significant disruption to civil listings at Leeds Combined Court this week. Great to see a judge who takes his leadership responsibilities so seriously.

The hearing was rescheduled with eight days notice to the parties. Which was insufficient notice for the Claimant. The Claimant informed the court of this and the grounds for being unable to attend the short-notice rescheduled hearing. Either these grounds were not out before the judge or else were ignored.

One facet of The Hon. Nicholas Lavender’s handling of cases can be seen on a website in which it’s complained that he seeks to drive up costs for litigants. Particularly ones whose cases he finds tiresome. I suppose he has to find some amusement in the job. This site can be found at https://www.bentjudgenicholaslavender.site/index.php/contact/ [viewed February 2020]. Some of the content of the site this writer is unable to verify: in respect of his seeking to drive up costs for parties however I am able to comment.

So consequently the grounds on which the Claimant couldn’t make the rescheduled hearing were ignored and an Order made by the judge regarding the rescheduled date. As per usual the route to challenge such an Order lies in the completion of an N244 form and the payment of a fee. Indeed this is the only route to do so when an Order has been made by the judge.

Now here’s where things get funky. In addition to driving up costs for parties he dislikes Nicholas Lavender likes to take his time on dealing with applications made. Sometimes this can be up to four months when HMCTS service standards say fourteen days should be the turnaround time for such.

So the court ignored the grounds for the Claimant not being able to attend the rescheduled date in order to make an application which would then cost the Claimant £55 to overturn. There is of course no guarantee that the application to vacate the rescheduled date would be heard before the due date of the hearing (especially not with this judge!) but hey… let’s take a punt on the idea of making some more money out of a service user.

This sort of thing represents clear sharp practice but is a common enough activity within HMCTS.

Posted on

Covid Secure Civil Courts?

Severe concerns exist regarding the safety of those being compelled to attend HMCTS civil courts

The official line from HMCTS is clear. That courts in the UK are COVID-19 secure.

The facts tell a different story altogether.

Outbreaks at half a dozen courts in the North East and North West circuits such as Leeds and Liverpool in the last few weeks show that HMCTS’ position is at best ill-informed and hopelessly optimistic. There have been further instances of the virus spreading at other courts across the UK. The PCS union has expressed severe concerns to its members regarding the safety of their workplaces, as has The Bar Council.

PCS members are encouraged to walk out of an unsafe working environment. Given the level of workplace bullying known to go on at civil courts such as York County Court it’s highly unlikely any member of court staff would do this.

Civil court users are not so lucky.

I have a hearing in case at Doncaster next week. The Defendant in the claim has already expressed surprise that the hearing is still set to go ahead despite a second national lockdown.

I have also expressed my own surprise to court staff who simply directed me to a webpage with the usual platitudes and informed that the hearing was still set for next week. The attitude towards safety concerns raised was dismissive and lethargic. This is simply not good enough in a pandemic.

None of the valid concerns I have expressed in communication with the court have received a response.

The simple fact is that a public building cannot be made COVID-19 secure any more than HMCTS can claim to have ensured a building is totally free of dust, oxygen or carbon atoms. Thus everyone attending a hearing at any court will be exposed to a potential risk of a severe illness, as will any of their family members when the attendee returns home.

If HMCTS were an organisation which is able to get the basics of running the civil system right then there would be more confidence in the claim that courts are COVID-19 secure. But the hopelessly inept, slapdash approach that characterises HMCTS pre-pandemic does not inspire confidence.

When people are being compelled to attend civil hearings in circumstances where there have been severe outbreaks in court buildings and staff appear dismissive of safety concerns one has to consider what the priorities of HMCTS are. Public health isn’t one of them.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started