Practitioners give broad welcome to revised Public Law Outline, research finds

The revised public law outline (PLO) – which introduced reduced timeframes for key stages in care cases – has been generally welcomed, research for the Ministry of Justice has found.

The revised PLO laid down, amongst other changes, that the case management hearing should be held no later than day 12 of a case, with detailed case management directions given to enable cases – where possible – to be completed within 26 weeks.

Research by Ipsos MORI and Plymouth University has found that practitioners were “very positive about the drive to reduce the time that public law cases spent in court”.

Many felt the revisions gave better focus on children’s timelines and their outcomes and had helped to conclude more cases within 26 weeks.

“It was felt cases were being conducted in a more focused and efficient way under the revised PLO,” the report said. “Children’s needs were felt to be identified earlier in proceedings, with parties seen to be acting quicker and levels of delay, particularly in court proceedings, being reduced.”

Practitioners told researchers that they had experienced challenges during the early stages of implementation, with many feeling that it would take time to adapt to the new requirements.

However, they believed that the positive aspects of the change outweighed any challenges, and were keen to stress that the reduced timeframes had encouraged and facilitated joint working and improved communication between agencies.

Some practitioners warned that the focus to complete cases within 26 weeks might not necessarily reduce the overall time that children were living in uncertainty.

“This may be due to a potential increased amount of time that cases spend during the pre-proceedings phase and because final orders made at 26 weeks may not always result in cases being closed,” the report said.

Other findings included a welcome for the increased drive to complete court documentation and assessments earlier during pre-proceedings and a shift to provide more focused and analytical local authority documentation.

Respondents to the research were particularly positive about the emphasis on local authorities owning and asserting their cases, with less reliance on independent experts to provide key evidence.

Some though felt social workers were struggling to adopt a more analytical approach to the chronology and social work statement, and that further training may be required.

Practitioners highlighted a range of ‘typical’ case types that may require flexibility where the 26-week timeline may present a challenge, such as alleged sexual abuse, parallel criminal proceedings or those involving multiple children.

They also urged greater flexibility to be applied where parties have a disability or capacity issue.

There were some concerns too that the reduced timeframes might impact on the ability of families to demonstrate sufficient change, for example in cases with drug or alcohol issues.

On the impact on the wider family justice system, the report said: “While many practitioners felt that the changes within the revised PLO had increased their workloads as they adapted to the new requirements, they did not see this as an insurmountable challenge.

“Indeed, many practitioners felt that workloads had not increased overall, but the increased front-loading of pre-proceedings and the reduced timetable for court proceedings meant that their workloads were more concentrated. Concerns were expressed that courts did not have sufficient capacity to list hearings in line with the revised PLO timeframes.”

The report identified a number of areas for further consideration. These included the need for additional flexibility to extend the CMH beyond Day 12, and greater clarity around complex cases that may require extensions beyond 26 weeks where the interests of the children require it. Finally, practitioners felt that the Case Management Order form was repetitive and required significant revisions.