HM Courts and Tribunals Service Board meeting – 18 June 2025
Published 30 September 2025
Applies to England, Scotland and Wales
© Crown copyright 2025
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service-board-meeting-18-june-2025/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service-board-meeting-18-june-2025
1. Attendees
1.1 Present
| Name | Role |
|---|---|
| Sir Richard Broadbent | Chairman |
| Nick Fishwick | Senior Independent Non-Executive Member |
| Nicky Wilden | Non-Executive Member and Audit and Risk Assurance Committee Chair |
| Luisa Fulci | Non-Executive Member |
| Nick Goodwin | Chief Executive |
| Annabel Burns | Strategy, Analysis and Planning Director |
| Daniel Flury | Operations Director |
| Catherine Blair | Chief Finance Officer |
| Gemma Hewison | Interim DG Policy, Courts & Access to Justice (MoJ) |
| Lord Justice Nicholas Green | Senior Presiding Judge (SPJ) |
| Mr Justice Dove | Deputy Senior President of Tribunals (DSPT) |
| HHJ Alison Raeside | Judicial Board member |
| Gemma Hewison | Interim DG Policy (MoJ) |
| Sally Parkinson | Director – Judicial and Legal Services Policy |
| Michelle Crotty | Chief Executive, Judicial Office |
1.2 Presenters
| Name | Role |
|---|---|
| Estates Strategy and Policy Lead | |
| Head of Modelling and Forecasting | |
| Eleanor Fray | Deputy Director, Courts and Tribunals Joint Unit |
| James McEwen | MoJ Chief Operating Officer |
| Farhad Chikhalia | Interim Director, Strategic Finance and Partnerships |
| Isabel Jones | Deputy Director, Financial Control (item 11) |
| Head of Compliance, Assurance and Risk | |
| Head of National Risk and Corporate Assurance |
1.3 Secretariat
| Role |
|---|
| Head of Corporate Governance & Board Secretariat |
| Deputy Head of Board Secretariat |
| Head of Operational Judicial Private Offices |
| Principal Private Secretary to the Lady Chief Justice |
2. Board Minutes and Action Log
Sir Richard introduced Gemma Hewison who would be joining the Board as a representative of MoJ in place of Jerome Glass who had now left the department.
The draft minutes from the HMCTS Board meeting on 23 January were approved as drafted. The for-information papers were considered, and HHJ Alison Raeside and Luisa Fulci’s reflections from the site visits conducted in Manchester were noted. The use of Artificial Intelligence was discussed, and it was suggested that the judiciary needed to be involved at an early stage.
3. Social Security and Child Support Venue – Wallace House, Stirling
The Board approved the proposal to conduct a four-week public consultation into the proposed permanent closure of Stirling SSCS and for the team to proceed with obtaining ministerial approval.
4. CEO Report
An announcement had been made confirming the appointment of Jo Farrar as Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice.
Following the Spending Review announcements on 11 June, HMCTS position remained unclear, and it was expected that the full funding position would not be known for some time. However, it was still the intention to ensure that the Concordat settlement was completed as early as possible.
Key challenges for HMCTS were noted as being Cyber Security, particularly in light of the recent attack on the Legal Aid Agency; the difficulties in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber (IAC) Tribunals in securing fee-paid judicial sittings; and the issues of with ongoing major capital projects, particularly at Newgate Street.
Civil Automatic Referral to Mediation was noted as a success and discussion took place around the possibility of similar interventions in other jurisdictions such as the Employment Tribunal (ET). It was suggested that this should be considered as part of a deep dive in ET that should be added to the Board forward plan.
5. Performance & Finance Updates
The Board were provided with an update on the latest management information. An update was provided on Crown Court sitting days utilisation.
Performance in Family Public Law was discussed and potential reasons explaining sitting patterns and actions being taken were also explored.
The Operational Report highlighted an improvement in the production of Family orders produced within 10 working days but a slight increase in the overall outstanding hours of work in Civil, Family and Tribunals (CFT). This had been attributed to an unexpected increase in Deed Poll applications which had resulted in the surge team resource being reallocated. It was confirmed that the surge team would be a permanent resource until demand reduced.
The finance paper provided to the Board provided the budgetary position for the start of the financial year, a more informative picture of how the financial year was developing would be provided the following month. Further clarity on allocations and the concordat process would also follow once available.
6. Service Demand Forecast
The service demand forecast showed a continued increase in outstanding caseloads with demand outstripping capacity across many jurisdictions but with the most concerning forecasts in the criminal courts and IAC. The impact of the Home Office Spending Review settlement, what that would mean for police officer numbers, and the potential for increased demand in the criminal courts had not yet been accounted for. Policy changes in the ET and Social Security & Child Support (SSCS) were also likely to increase demand in those jurisdictions.
Timeliness of reporting and modelling insights were discussed and the importance of finding the right balance between fast and accurate reporting was highlighted.
Questions were raised in relation to ‘what good looks like’ and how HMCTS would recognise when the system nears critical capacity. It was essential that the Board understood what the early warning signs were in different jurisdictions of the system facing effective breakdown.
7. Independent Review of the Criminal Courts (IRCC) / Independent Sentencing Review (ISR): Assessment, Implications of the Spending Review Settlement Overview of the MoJ Planning Work
The Spending Review (SR) settlement, whilst considered positive in very difficult fiscal circumstances, would require prioritisation and difficult decisions to best deliver the outcomes of the Independent Sentencing Review (ISR) and the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts (IRCC).
An overview was provided of the MoJ planning that was commissioned by the Interim Permanent Secretary, covering three different workstreams; the Criminal Justice System (CJS), the CFT system and Headquarters (HQ) structures.
The positives and disbenefits of setting hard multi-year budgets were being considered against setting a hard one-year budget, with uncertainties in years 3 and 4. Whilst the desire for a quick decision was recognised, a balance was needed between pace and informed conversations which included engagement with the Judicial Executive Board (JEB).
In conclusion, the Chairman said that the Board recognised the complex and inter-related challenges of a systemic problem, the need for change, possibly radical change, and the need to sequence implementation. Engagement at the earliest possible point with all concerned would be required, as well as an outline timetable for the allocations process.
8. Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (ARAC) – Quarterly Report
ARAC had raised concerns around the data quality of the transfer of information from legacy systems. The Committee was looking forward to receiving advice on judicial security due to a lack of clarity around where the responsibility lay. HMCTS confirmed it was convening the relevant policy leads from MoJ and Judicial Office to identify a way forward.
The cyber-attack on the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) had highlighted the need for HMCTS to be as well prepared as possible and a paper would be taken to the committee in September on business continuity. It was suggested that this paper should also be shared with the HMCTS Board members.
9. Risk Reporting and Risk Appetite
The risk table had been updated following feedback from the Board and ARAC to indicate the areas where there could be increased or decreased risk appetite. A risk appetite statement had also been developed to help guide decision-making and identify where more risk could be taken.
The Board commended the work done. Questions were raised about whether the Executive Team (ExT) were being too risk averse. Discussion took place around the level of risk already being taken and it was noted that this was not effectively illustrated in the report. It was argued that for a more open risk appetite to be adopted, there needed to be broader support from stakeholders, which was difficult to attain in a complex landscape.
Commercial procurement was an area where additional risk was being proposed, and MoJ was also reviewing its risk appetite in this space. However, HMCTS was presenting risk out of appetite in this area due to a disproportionate high number of out of contract extensions as a result of the previous focus on the Reform Programme. Plans were in place to return to a more stable procurement process.
10. HMCTS Data Quality Programme
The original 3-year programme had been accelerated to 2-years following Board feedback. The programme spanned different jurisdictions and included data quality reports to flag cases with unusual characteristics.
Early findings of the magistrates’ court data had shown that 0.2% of cases were unexpectedly open, likely due mainly to issues of practice rather than data coding.
The Board stressed the importance of operational culture in identifying and correcting data issues, including being responsive to judicial feedback. It was suggested that the programme would be better described in phases to better reflect its scope of ensuring data accuracy rather than introducing new metrics.