Ministry of Justice plans for fundamental reform and “better law”

8 November 2010 by

Updated | For those looking for clues as to how the Ministry of Justice will prioritise its funding after the impending 25% budget cut, it has just released its 2011-15 business plan.

The MoJ’s ‘vision’ is certainly ambitious. Despite the cuts, there will be “better law“. This will come from a programme of “fundamental reform” which will cure the problems of “too much litigation, too many people reoffending and too much money spent on systems”.

Under the heading “Coalition Priorities”, the MoJ provides its plans for structural reform. It is not clear whether these are in order of priority:

1. Introduce a rehabilitation revolution

• Create a system introducing greater involvement of the private and voluntary sectors in the rehabilitation of offenders, including use of payment by results, to cut reoffending

2. Reform sentencing and penalties

• Ensure that the justice system reduces reoffending by introducing more effective sentencing policies and considering the use of restorative justice for adult and youth crimes

3. Reform courts, tribunals and legal aid, and work with others to reform delivery of criminal justice

• Reform the legal aid system to make it work more efficiently, while ensuring that we provide necessary support for those who need it most and for those cases that require it. Develop court reforms to improve the resolution of disputes, maximise efficiency and improve services and work with others to make delivery of criminal justice more effective and efficient

4. Assure better law

• Assure that law-making is transparent and accountable, safeguarding civil liberties and enabling citizens to receive the proper protection of the law

5. Reform how we deliver our services

• Reform the way the Ministry of Justice works. Reassess our ways of working to develop more efficient shared services, match our provision ever more closely to demand, reduce duplication and streamline our functions wherever possible

Much of this was already known. It has been widely reported that Kenneth Clarke’s MoJ will put more emphasis on non-custodial rehabilitation, which will apparently result in six prisons being closed for good. It is also well-known, and causing much concern, that legal aid will take a large hit. Proposals for legal aid reform are to be ready by Autumn 2010, with a consultation taking place from now until early 2011. The reforms will be instituted by Spring 2011. Reforms to family court services will not be instituted until May 2012, however. A major review is already underway, but the government will be wary of rushing into reforms into the fiendishly complex family justice arena.

Under the “assure better law” heading, the MoJ plans to increase transparency of court results and the effectiveness of sentences, including publishing court data in an open and standardised format. All has gone quiet recently on the promised commission to investigate the creation of a UK Bill of Rights. According to the MoJ plan, this will be established by December 2011.

Also on the “better law” topic, unnecessary laws will be repealed by way of a Freedom Bill by February 2011, libel law will be reformed by May 2012 and coverage of the Freedom of Information Act will be extended by April 2011.

A Cabinet Office Green Paper will be developed to “develop options for the use of intelligence and sensitive material in judicial proceedings… to ensure that arrangements best serve the interests of justice and national security.” It is not clear whether this will bolster or undermine the civil courts’ recent trend towards protecting open justice, but we should know by July 2011.

Full details of the MoJ’s plans, including time-scales for the reforms, can be found in the Business Plan document, or in this slightly trendier presentation of the same on the No. 10 website. The MoJ are also inviting people’s comments on the plan by way of an email to or by letter to Ministry of Justice Transparency team, 6th floor, 102 petty france, London, SW1H 9A. We would also be interested in your views by way of the comments section below.

Updated, 9 Nov 2010 – The Commission on the bill of rights will only be established by December 2011, it will not as previously posted have to report by then (thank you to the UKSC Blog for alerting me to this slip). This sounds like a long time to establish a committee and set terms of reference.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more


  1. Paul Tweed says:

    Now that the Ministry of Justice have announced a timetable for the forthcoming review of UK Libel legislation, in response to unprecedented pressure from the media and following what has been one of the most successful US lobbying campaigns since that initiated by the tobacco industry some years ago, it will be interesting to see how the Government reacts to this totally unjustified clamour for reform.
    I say this particularly bearing in mind the embarrassment caused to the American lobbyists and legislators as a result of the recently published statistics establishing beyond any doubt that, contrary to press speculation on both sides of the Atlantic, the number of international libel claims brought before the UK Courts has been miniscule, thereby further exposing the totally disproportionate response to what is, to all intents and purposes, a “non issue”.
    Of even more significance will be the reaction of our Courts to requests for enforcement of US judgments against UK citizens and companies in cases involving grossly excessive punitive damages and attorneys’ fees, the latter often amounting to almost fifty percent of the damages awarded. To reverse the argument put forward by the lobbyists in the US Libel Tourism debate, such judgments would never be countenanced by a UK Court and the scale of such awards are offensive to all basic principles of British law.
    If we are to believe everything we read in the press and the extensive coverage of the so called libel tourism problem, then you would think that the UK Courts were being besieged by multiple claims from numerous international litigants seeking to obtain justice by the back door, which is of course nonsense as the facts and figures have now established. The truth of the matter is that the media have seized upon an opportunity to snuff out one of the last opportunities for the general public to seek redress from an increasingly reckless press, who already have the financial clout to see off any unfortunate individual having the temerity to take them on, unless that individual is a man of substantial means.
    Unfortunately the powerful lobbying platform enjoyed by the press is not available to the supporters of our Defamation laws, in what has been, at best, a one sided debate in the media.
    The irony is that the UK broadsheets are generally regarded to be among the most credible and respected in the world, which is in no small measure due to our fair and balanced libel laws!
    Paul Tweed
    Johnsons Solicitors
    Senior Partner
    Belfast | Dublin | London

  2. A business plan defines the structure of the company and the object of the business activity.It contains a market analysis and details of strategic marketing, management structure, personnel and finance. A business plan plays an essential role in business administration. When properly conceived, it acts as a valuable tool.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: