Sir James Munby said cuts to legal aid had left many people without representation and struggling to navigate system

This article is more than 2 years old

This article is more than 2 years old

The outgoing head of the family courts in England and Wales has raised concerns about access to family courts and said help for litigants who had to represent themselves due to cuts to legal aid was “woefully inadequate”.

On his final day in office before retirement, and against a backdrop of court closures across England and Wales, Sir James Munby, president of the family court division, said of the family system: “Anybody who thinks that we currently have a network of courts which enables proper access to justice is deluding themselves.”

Family courts face 'imminent crisis' over huge rise in care applications Read more

He cited the case of a litigant who had to make a 24-mile round trip on foot to a court, and said alternatives to appearing in person must be considered.

Munby said those who lived in rural areas and had no access to private transport were hardest hit.

“That is the reality of our present justice system,” he said.

“We don’t have – and haven’t for some time – the kind of system which serves people dependent on public transport.”

Discussing cuts to legal aid, Munby would not be drawn on the legislation that led to the cuts, but said courts must provide improved assistance to those who could not afford to appoint a lawyer to navigate the complex process.

Munby said those who had been through the courts should be asked if, rather than appear in person, they would have preferred different means, such as via video call on services such as Skype.

“I don’t know what the answer is but we haven’t actually gone out and asked litigants what they actually prefer. I don’t know.”

He added: “I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant number of people would be saying actually ... I’d rather do it by Skype.”

Munby said recent court closures were the “first step in the complete rationalisation of the way we administer justice”.

Alternatives included judges travelling to litigants rather than vice versa and mobile courts.

He said: “Why shouldn’t the judge go and see the litigants? I was sitting in Norwich because Norwich was more convenient for the litigants than coming to London.”

He added: “I’ve said this before and people think I’m bonkers. When I was young one was familiar with huge vans going round the countryside. One was the mobile library, the other was a mobile X-ray unit when TB was a big problem in the country. Why don’t we use that kind of technology as a mobile court?”

Asked about the cuts to legal aid introduced five years ago, he said: “What I would like to comment on is the reality … The fact is we have far more litigants in person than we did.

“The consequence is very large numbers of people come to court without representation. Our present court processes, our rules, our forms, our guidance, is woefully inadequate to enable litigants in person – even educated, highly articulate intelligent litigants in person – to understand the system. That’s a shocking reproach to us. That’s a current reality.”