I've learned about concerns regarding the IT systems used by HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS). A leaked report suggests that a problem with the software, which has been present for years, caused evidence to disappear, be rewritten, or seem lost. This issue affected case-management software used in civil, family, and tribunal courts.

Sources indicate that judges may have made decisions with incomplete information because of this bug. The internal report mentioned that HMCTS did not fully investigate the extent of the data problems or how they might have impacted specific cases. It also stated that judges and lawyers were not informed, as management believed it would cause more harm than good.

HMCTS has stated that their own review found no evidence that case results were affected by these technical problems. However, a former head of the High Court's family division, Sir James Munby, described the situation as "shocking" and a "scandal," noting that such errors could significantly affect people's lives, for example, in decisions about child safety or benefit claims.

The software, known by various names including Judicial Case Manager, MyHMCTS, or CCD, is used to manage evidence and track cases. Documents show it made information like medical records and contact details difficult to see. The Social Security and Child Support Tribunal is believed to have been most affected, but similar issues may have impacted other courts dealing with family matters, employment, and probate.

Some individuals within HMCTS have compared the situation to the Post Office scandal, suggesting a pattern of trying to hide system flaws. They expressed concern about the software's design and a reluctance from senior management to address the problems despite warnings from IT staff. One source described a "culture of cover-ups," where the focus was on preventing public knowledge of risks rather than addressing the risks themselves.

A briefing from March 2024 categorized the risk to court proceedings as "high," with a "very likely" chance of affecting case outcomes and causing significant damage to HMCTS's reputation. However, an initial investigation only looked at a small portion of recent cases, and the report concluded that the full extent of the data corruption remained unknown due to a lack of comprehensive investigation. The report also noted that data loss issues continue to be reported with the IT system.

In family courts, a separate IT problem reportedly caused thousands of documents to go missing in hundreds of family law cases, including those involving child protection. This bug was discovered in 2023 and may have been present for some time. While it has since been fixed, no investigation was conducted to determine its impact on past cases.

An HMCTS spokesperson stated that all parties involved always had access to the documents they needed and emphasized the importance of continuing with digitization efforts. Political figures have called for full, independent investigations into the matter, with one former Justice Secretary expressing deep concern that the issue was not brought to his attention during his tenure.

Original article

Actionable Information: There is no actionable information provided for a normal person to take immediate action. The article details a problem within HMCTS IT systems but does not offer steps for individuals to verify their case data or seek recourse.

Educational Depth: The article provides some educational depth by explaining the nature of the IT problems, the potential consequences (e.g., decisions made with incomplete information), and the comparison to the Post Office scandal, suggesting systemic issues. It also names the software involved. However, it lacks deeper technical explanations of *how* the bugs occurred or detailed historical context beyond the mention of the problem being present for years.

Personal Relevance: The topic has significant personal relevance for individuals who have had or are currently involved in civil, family, or tribunal court cases in the UK. The potential for evidence to be lost or altered could directly impact the outcomes of cases concerning child safety, benefits, and other life-altering matters.

Public Service Function: The article serves a public service function by bringing attention to a potential systemic failure within a government service that impacts the justice system. It highlights concerns raised by internal reports and external figures, suggesting a need for greater transparency and accountability.

Practicality of Advice: No advice or steps are offered in the article, so practicality cannot be assessed.

Long-Term Impact: The article points to potential long-term impacts on public trust in the justice system and the reliability of digital records. It suggests that the issues, if not fully addressed, could have lasting consequences for individuals whose cases were affected.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: The article could evoke feelings of concern, frustration, or even anger in readers, particularly those who have experienced difficulties with the court system or have had cases involving sensitive matters. The comparison to the Post Office scandal and descriptions like "culture of cover-ups" contribute to a potentially negative emotional impact.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The article uses words like "shocking," "scandal," and "culture of cover-ups" which, while descriptive of the reported situation, lean towards dramatic language to convey the severity of the issues. However, it appears to be reporting on a leaked report and expert opinions rather than being purely clickbait.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: The article misses opportunities to guide readers on how to learn more or what to do if they suspect their case was affected. For instance, it could have suggested checking official HMCTS guidance, contacting legal representatives, or looking for information from relevant ombudsman services. A normal person could find more information by searching for official HMCTS statements on IT issues, contacting their legal representative if they have one, or looking for reports from legal watchdog organizations.

The issues described in the text, while seemingly technical and bureaucratic, have profound implications for the very fabric of society and the fundamental units of human connection: families, clans, and communities.

The software bug that caused evidence to disappear or be altered is a direct threat to the fair and just resolution of conflicts, which is essential for maintaining peace and order within communities. When evidence is tampered with or lost, it undermines the ability of judges to make informed decisions, potentially leading to incorrect rulings that can have devastating consequences for families. For instance, in child protection cases, incorrect decisions could result in the separation of children from their families, causing untold emotional trauma and potentially damaging the child's future prospects.

The lack of transparency and the culture of cover-ups within the organization are particularly concerning. When management chooses to hide system flaws instead of addressing them, it erodes trust within the community. Trust is the foundation of any healthy community, and without it, the social fabric begins to fray. The impact of this erosion is felt most acutely by the most vulnerable: children and elders. When the systems meant to protect them are compromised, it leaves them exposed and at risk.

The issue of missing documents in family law cases is a direct assault on the ability of families to protect and care for their own. Family law cases often involve highly sensitive and personal matters, and the loss of documents can lead to a breakdown of trust within families, as well as between families and the legal system. This breakdown can have long-lasting effects, potentially leading to family fragmentation and a loss of the support networks that are vital for the survival and well-being of children and elders.

Furthermore, the focus on digitization, while it has its benefits, must not come at the cost of basic human duties and responsibilities. The care and protection of children and elders are fundamental to the survival of the clan and the continuity of the people. When these duties are shifted onto distant, impersonal authorities or when the tools meant to support these duties fail, it weakens the very foundation of society.

If these issues are not addressed and the described behaviors continue to spread unchecked, the consequences will be dire. Families will become increasingly fractured, unable to fulfill their duties of care and protection. Children, the future of the clan and the land, will be at risk, both physically and emotionally. Elders, the holders of wisdom and tradition, will be left vulnerable and unsupported. The land, which relies on the stewardship of the people, will suffer as the continuity of the clan is threatened.

In essence, the survival of the people and the stewardship of the land depend on the strength and unity of families and communities. Ideas and behaviors that undermine this strength, that shift responsibilities away from the clan, or that erode trust must be recognized and rectified. It is through the daily care and deeds of the people, rooted in ancestral wisdom, that the balance of life is maintained and the future secured.

The text uses strong words to create a negative impression of HMCTS. For example, it calls the situation "shocking" and a "scandal." This language aims to make readers feel that HMCTS has done something very wrong. It highlights negative opinions from one person to make the problem seem worse than it might be.

The text presents a one-sided view by focusing heavily on the leaked report and criticisms. It contrasts this with HMCTS's statement that their review found no evidence of affected case results. This creates a conflict where the negative claims are presented with more detail and emotional language than the defense.

The text uses passive voice to hide who is responsible for certain actions or inactions. For instance, "judges and lawyers were not informed" does not state who decided not to inform them. This makes it unclear who made the decision to withhold information.

The text suggests a pattern of deception by comparing the situation to the Post Office scandal. It quotes individuals who describe a "culture of cover-ups." This comparison aims to link HMCTS to a known, serious wrongdoing without direct proof within the text itself.

The text uses words that suggest management is hiding problems. Phrases like "reluctance from senior management to address the problems" and "culture of cover-ups" imply deliberate avoidance and secrecy. This frames management as intentionally ignoring or concealing issues.

The text presents speculation as fact when it says, "Sources indicate that judges may have made decisions with incomplete information." The word "may" shows this is not a confirmed fact. However, it is presented as a likely consequence of the IT problems.

The text uses the phrase "believed to have been most affected" to describe the impact on the Social Security and Child Support Tribunal. This indicates that the extent of the problem is not definitively known. It suggests a strong possibility of a problem without providing concrete proof of its full scope.

The text expresses a strong sense of concern and worry regarding the IT systems used by HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS). This emotion is evident from the beginning, with phrases like "concerns regarding the IT systems" and the description of evidence disappearing or being lost. The impact of this is highlighted by the possibility of judges making decisions with incomplete information, which directly affects people's lives, particularly in sensitive areas like child safety or benefit claims. This concern is amplified by the comparison to the Post Office scandal, suggesting a pattern of hiding problems, and the description of a "culture of cover-ups." The purpose of this emotion is to alert the reader to a serious issue and to create a sense of unease about the integrity of the justice system.

The text also conveys a feeling of outrage and disappointment, particularly through the words of Sir James Munby, who describes the situation as "shocking" and a "scandal." This strong language indicates a deep disapproval of how the IT problems were handled and the potential consequences for individuals. The emotion of outrage serves to underscore the severity of the situation and to provoke a strong negative reaction in the reader towards HMCTS's management. This is further supported by the mention of a "high" risk to court proceedings and the "very likely" chance of affecting case outcomes, which aims to cause worry and a desire for immediate action.

Furthermore, there is an underlying emotion of distrust towards HMCTS management. This is fueled by the report's findings that the extent of data problems was not fully investigated, judges and lawyers were not informed, and there was a reluctance to address problems despite warnings. The comparison to the Post Office scandal reinforces this distrust, suggesting a deliberate effort to conceal flaws. This emotion is used to persuade the reader to question the official statements from HMCTS, such as their claim that case results were not affected, and to support calls for independent investigations. The writer uses persuasive tools like strong negative descriptors ("shocking," "scandal," "cover-ups") and comparisons to well-known scandals to amplify the emotional impact and guide the reader towards a critical view of HMCTS's actions. The repetition of the idea that investigations were not comprehensive and that data loss issues continue also serves to build this distrust and emphasize the ongoing nature of the problem.