Security training and updating procedures for managing potentially violent people are among new measures to improve the safety of judges facing threats, abuse and assault, the Gazette has learned.
A group of senior judges and HM Courts & Tribunals Service officials has been set up to improve court security arrangements, in response to the assault on Judge Perusko at Milton Keynes last November.
A note from the senior presiding judge, Lord Justice Edis, seen by the Gazette, says that a ‘Task and Finish Group’ has been set up ‘to implement the immediate changes which have been identified in the investigations’ following the attack.
Barry Clarke, the president of employment tribunals, and Edis are among those in the group, which is chaired by Andrew Baigent, the chief financial officer in HMCTS’s senior management team.
One of its key tasks will be to update the Potentially Violent Persons Protocol (PVPP) which sets out the procedures for managing threats posed by individuals attending the civil and family courts and tribunals. The document was last updated in March 2023.
Edis also wants to improve the ‘understanding between judges, staff and security staff’ about the operation of the protocol.
Responsibility for security issues will no longer be dealt with by a sub-committee of the Judges’ Council – a body that advises the lady chief justice on judicial matters – but will transfer to the leadership judges in the courts and tribunals, supported by the security liaison judges for their buildings or jurisdictions.
In the letter, Edis says he is in ‘active discussion’ with the Judicial College to commission training on security matters, which will cover the ‘management of the risk assessment process’ and ‘improved understanding of the legal powers available to judges’.
Pending the revised protocol and training, Edis offers interim guidance stating that the risk assessment process is a matter for HMCTS staff to carry out. While judges should be consulted, he stressed that the judge ‘is not responsible for making the risk assessment’.
If the risk assessment suggests that any person’s right of access to a hearing should be subject to conditions in the interests of safety, Edis states that a judicial order will be required, for example to allow remote attendance only. Where a risk assessment requires additional security staff, Edis says ‘HMCTS local staff should make arrangements in good time’.
Where courts have cells and sufficient security staff, he suggests that ‘contempt in the face of the court remains a valuable judicial tool for managing bad behaviour’. He also reminds judges to be aware of the location of the panic button and exit route in all courts where they sit.
The measures follow a three-month pilot which began last month in the Central Family Court, in which judges will test whether wearing robes makes them less likely to be assaulted.
This article is now closed for comment.
