15 July 2015Print This Post

MoJ set to introduce new transcription service in January 2016

Ministry of Justice

MoJ: transcripts have breached reporting restrictions

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has “escalated dramatically” the timetable for introducing a new transcription service and said it wants new contracts to be in place by January 2016, it has emerged.

In an informal discussion paper for the June meeting of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC), the MoJ said it was currently looking with HM Courts and Tribunals Service into procurement of the new contracts to provide transcription services.

At same time, the ministry said it was carrying out its own “policy review” into issues relating to the ownership and publication of court judgments, as at present there is no “official concept or definition of what constitutes a transcript that has been approved for publication and/or use on appeal”.

The MoJ said it understood that there had been incidents when “content of a transcript or judgment have been published in breach of a reporting restriction” and asked the committee if this was a rare or frequent occurrence.

The ministry said it would be interested to know how widespread was the practice, particularly in complex and high-value High Court cases, of the courts using a non-panel transcription provider.

Further questions for the CPRC concerned members’ experience of court transcriber Merrill Legal Solutions – which publishes a “large selection” of judgments – and views on the efficiency of free judgments website BAILII.

The ministry added that to meet the January 2016 deadline, secondary legislation would need to be passed by December this year.

According to minutes of last month’s CPRC meeting, members complained of delays in receiving transcripts of judgments, which had a “knock-on effect on the timing of the hearing of appeals”. One member mentioned that some law firms employed their own transcriber to avoid delays.

“The two methods of recording judgements – tape recording and digital – lead to inconsistencies in the quality of recording and consequently the transcription,” the committee heard.

“It was reported that the process and responsibility for making sure the recording equipment was running varied between courts. This could lead to cases not being recorded, particularly where deputy district judges are sitting or where the judge is sitting in an unfamiliar court.”

Judges also complained of the difficulties of being asked to check transcripts to tight deadlines from a judgment given “some time previously”, particularly when no case file was available.

“They reported that quotations are unchecked and that sections are marked ‘inaudible’, general inaccuracies also hampered the checking the judgment. As a result it is a much more time-consuming job than if the judgment had been prepared and checked straight away. It is an inefficient use of judicial resources.”

The CPRC also noted the imbalance in the costs of judgments, with some available free from BAILLI, while parties in the lower courts had to pay a transcription fee.

One committee member suggested that an “off-shore supplier” should be brought in to cut costs and increase speed.

Mr Justice Coulson told the committee he did not believe his comments had fed into the last MoJ procurement exercise and he “felt the current contract did not favour the court”.

By Nick Hilborne

Tags: , ,


3 Responses to “MoJ set to introduce new transcription service in January 2016”

  1. Almost everything in this article is incorrect.
    The reason why judgments are delivered late is:
    1. Trying to obtain the recording from the civil servants who hold the tape or digital recording.
    2. As transcribers we are given no documents to prepare the transcripts, names of counsel, names of the parties.
    3. Judges take a long time to approve their judgments and always have. If a judge is sitting in court most of the day the last thing they want to do is start approving a shoddy transcript prepared by a company who has been allowed to be on the tape transcription panel because they are cheap. You pay peanuts and you get monkeys.

  2. Stephen Carter on February 1st, 2017 at 6:38 pm
  3. I have transcribed recordings from the county court. I can hear every word the judge says in private, even down to the judge using the toilet! And they complain about inaudibles? if someone coughs then what was said is obliterated for good. What are we supposed to do, make it up? As for checking quotes, most of us transcribers do not have access to a law library. We use what we can find on the internet. We ask the solicitor we are transcribing for to provide us with names, but often we are given wrong information. So why is it our fault these problems have occurred. We do not award the contracts to the cheapest companies that is down to the MOJ. We have had our salaries decrease year upon year under competitive tendering and this is the result.

  4. Stephen Carter on February 1st, 2017 at 6:44 pm
  5. As for one member employing their own transcriber to provide the service. How did they get the recording? Did they record it themselves with or without the judge’s approval?

  6. Stephen Carter on February 1st, 2017 at 6:53 pm

Leave a comment

We encourage you to be part of the Litigation Futures community but please note that all comments will be moderated before posting. We draw your attention to clause 5 of the Terms and Conditions of the site, which deals with user-generated content.