Review a magistrates’ court decision
HM Courts & Tribunals Service's Review a magistrates’ court decision beta assessment report
Review a magistrates’ court decision
| Assessment date | 22/10/2025 |
| Assessment stage | Beta |
| Assessment type | Assessment |
| Service provider | HM Courts & Tribunals Service |
| Result | Amber |
Service description
Users who have been convicted and sentenced in a magistrates’ court of a non-imprisonable offence have 4 post court options. The service aims to inform them of not only the options but the eligibility and consequences of each one. A series of questions ascertains which option the user is eligible for and collects all the relevant data that the court and CTSC staff need to be able to effectively process the submitted applications.
The scope for the service assessment begins from the guidance page on GOV.UK, includes the form, and ends at the point of form submission. The scope does not include the handling of data by the CTSC and court staff.
Service users
This service is for:
- Citizens who wish to challenge a Magistrate Court decision
- CTSC staff who need to sort and process applications
- Court staff who need to list cases appropriately and correctly
Things the service team has done well:
- The service team has a good understanding of user pain points in the SJP process, particularly unclear guidance which has led to users making decisions that aren’t in their best interest.
- The service team has shown adaptation and collaboration in a complex legal setting, managing stakeholder expectations and balancing skills across HMCTS to help ensure improvements are driven by user needs.
1. Understand users and their needs
Decision
The service was rated amber for point 1 of the Standard.
This is amber because:
- The service team has done some great work to understand the user needs, as well as the needs of the supporting teams, and those working in court environments. The service team could gain a better understanding of whether the service meets the user needs by investigating live observations with users while they complete the form, or call listening while a user is on the phone and completing the form at the same time with a contact centre staff member.
2. Solve a whole problem for users
Decision
The service was rated green for point 2 of the Standard.
Optional advice to help the service team continually improve the service:
- This is green based on the limited scope and the use of MoJ Forms.
3. Provide a joined-up experience across all channels
Decision
The service was rated amber for point 3 of the Standard.
This is amber because:
- Working with existing teams to understand accessibility requirements and ‘We Are Group’ to understand how users with barriers are unable to complete the form. Further evidence required on grouping issues with the independent group and how this is feeding into iterations.
- The ‘future state’ end-to-end journey can’t truly be tested and analysed without the entry point to the form from GOV.UK, with users bypassing the contact centre and lengthy call wait times. The team could investigate whether users in a certain area or postcode could be sent to GOV.UK rather than the helpline, and an entry point to the form decided on key user detail, such as a postcode, for example. The assessment team appreciates that this could mean earlier than planned changes in processing and communications but it would enable the ability to test the journey in a controlled way, meeting the purpose of a private beta.
4. Make the service simple to use
Decision
The service was rated amber for point 4 of the Standard.
This is amber because:
- The service team should provide confirmation once the recommended changes made by the GDS content review are implemented.
5. Make sure everyone can use the service
Decision
The service was rated amber for point 5 of the Standard.
This is amber because:
-
The service team has bought in experience from a User Inclusion Team to help make changes to content and are using MoJ Forms which currently meets WCAG 2.2 compliance. However, there is concern that no testing with assistive technologies was committed on the service. Furthermore, the content needs to be reviewed to reduce the content and cognitive burden on the page. (part of Service Standard 4).
-
The assessment team is concerned about accessibility to the form as the only way to get access currently is by calling a phone number. During a private beta phase there is an expectation that the full end to end journey is being tested in a controlled way and understood to give confidence in rolling this out fully in public beta. The service team has been unable to test the end-to-end journey (accessing the form from GOV.UK) so there is a gap in this knowledge.
6. Have a multidisciplinary team
Decision
The service was rated green for point 6 of the Standard.
7. Use agile ways of working
Decision
The service was rated green for point 7 of the Standard.
Optional advice to help the service team continually improve the service:
- The service team could carry out more planning for the process around making changes to the form when it is live, e.g. downtime requirements and communication to users.
8. Iterate and improve frequently
Decision
The service was rated green for point 8 of the Standard.
Optional advice to help the service team continually improve the service:
- It would have been good to see specific evidence of how the team have designed using both analytics data and user research to measure the success of iterations.
9. Create a secure service which protects users’ privacy
Decision
The service was rated amber for point 9 of the Standard.
This is amber because:
- An IT Health Check has been performed on the previous technical solution of which components have migrated to the new solution. The service team should continue to work with internal Cyber Security teams to ensure compliance with MoJ security policies and practices and to get the most out of technologies that may be available from central resources.
10. Define what success looks like and publish performance data
Decision
The service was rated green for point 10 of the Standard.
Optional advice to help the service team continually improve the service:
- Metrics have been considered for this service, although it would be good to see how these map to the outcomes or success of the service and be documented in a performance framework.
11. Choose the right tools and technology
Decision
The service was rated green for point 11 of the Standard.
12. Make new source code open
Decision
The service was rated green for point 12 of the Standard.
13. Use and contribute to open standards, common components and patterns
Decision
The service was rated green for point 13 of the Standard.
14. Operate a reliable service
Decision
The service was rated amber for point 14 of the Standard.
This is amber because:
-
It was not clear if all risks identified as part of threat modelling activity had been captured in risk logs. Recommendation would be to track risk centrally in a single risk register.
-
It was discussed at the tech pre-meet that data recovery had not been tested. Recommendation to work with MoJ security/Business Continuity teams to exercise test plans and ensure that data can be recovered. Recommendation to carry out risk assessment and track in risk register.