Projects x 4 Activities x 14 Projects x 4 Activities x 28 Projects x 2 Activities x 27 Projects x 2 Activities x 8 Access to JusticeProject (formerly CDR): Toolkit Implementation - via Responsive Fund Code of Judicial ConductProject CoJC and Complaints Handling Toolkit as an Additional Activity or via Responsive Fund (x1) Judicial AdministrationProject Time Standards Toolkit Implementation(x4) Delay Reduction Pilot and Toolkit (x2) IT Administrators’ Network (regional) Regional Training CapacityProject Certification ToT Workshop (x1 regional) Advanced RTT CD/PM Workshop (x1 regional) RTT Mentoring Network (regional) Family Violence and Youth JusticeProject Toolkit Implementation(x5) In-country follow-up / monitoring visits (x5) Remote follow-up / monitoring (x2) Regional Governance and Leadership Meetings(x9 regional) Court Annual ReportingProject(formerly PM&E) Toolkit Implementation, including Survey (x6 + 14 for data collection and reporting) Core Judicial DevelopmentProject: Regional Orientation Workshop (x1) Local Orientation Training Pilot and Toolkit (x1) Regional Decision Making Workshops (x2) Local Decision Making Pilot and Toolkit (x1) Public InformationProject Pilot and Toolkit (x1) National Judicial Development CommitteeProject Toolkit Implementation(x1) Enabling Rights Project Pilot and Toolkit (x1) Responsive Fund (minimum x17) The above project and activity structure reflects the refinement in the PJDP’s approach towards promotingincreased locaIisation of implementation and a stronger focus on strengthening the delivering services to beneficiaries. Thishas resulted in a shift in the allocation of resources. As graphically illustrated below, resourcing in this Extension Plan compared to the current 12-month Extension Plan has to some degree moved away from traditional training / professional development activities towards those projects that promote judicial and court development: Expenditure as a Percentage of the Budget Allocated to the Four Technical Components The approach to locating the planned activities adopted earlier in the implementation of Phase 2 has again been adopted. This has entailed partner courts ‘self-selecting’ which bi-lateral projects are to be undertaken in each jurisdiction as part of the stakeholder consultations at the leadership meetings in March 2013.In this way, courts have selected which activities best meet their priority development needs, in order to tailor Programme support and maximise development outcomes.
and/ or not appropriately responding to family violence and juvenile justice issues which are pervasive across the region. A poor response to these issues undermines appropriate access to justice for vulnerable groups 1.1 Access to Justice (formerly Customary Dispute Resolution) Project To support at selected PICs to systematically address community dispute resolution needs. One integrated in/formal justice system planning workshop conducted using preliminary research data and providing technical inputs into integrated planning. No evidence-based strategy exists to integrate in/formal justice systems in the region. An evidence-based strategy exists which articulates the benefits to governance and the rule of law of stronger linkages between in/formal justice systems in the region. The strategy has been developed by PJDP and approved by the PEC. The Access to Justice plan and toolkit enabling other PICs to forge stronger links with informal dispute resolution actors and improve access to justice (the strategy) is being piloted in Tuvalu. The results will be available for PIC (Tuvalu) before June 2013. The RegionalAccess to Justice in interested PICs using the Responsive Fund mechanism enabling Access to Justice Plans to be developed and implemented. Quality of Access to Justice Plan particularly their incorporation of community dispute resolution needs. Access to Justice Plans / RF reports. TA Number of PICs the Toolkit is implemented to. 1.2 Enabling Rights Project Claim(s) of previously unmet legal needs are NA Baseline 2013: courts do not promote equal access to or focus on NA A methodology enabling those seeking justice to access available Quality of toolkit for promoting justice for beneficiaries. Toolkit and TA/PIC reports. TA/PIC
brought to, and resolved by, the courts in at least one PIC. being responsive to the needs of the citizens they serve. As a result, there is a plethora of unmet justice needs within the community. remedies is developed, piloted and adopted in one PIC. Percentage increase in claims made to courts for remedies focussed on during the pilot. 1.3 Family Violence and Juvenile Justice Project Up to five PICs responding as a sector, more holistically and competently to family/juvenile justice issues. Improvements in competence to manage family/juvenile issues in two PICs. 2012 Baseline: Judicial and court officers are not aware of and/or not appropriately responding to family violence and juvenile justice issues which are pervasive across the region and the poor responses to these issues undermines appropriate access to justice for vulnerable groups. 40 participants attended a workshop in Palau and 35 attended a workshop in Vanuatu, both of which were reportedly high quality, practical, relevant and useful. Participants assessed improvements in awareness, knowledge, skills and attitudes related to relevant issues, law, contemporary practice and procedure and inter-agency MOUs were signed at the conclusion of both workshops to promote improvements in family / domestic violence law, practice and procedure and commitment made to develop diversionary processes for juveniles. Improvements in awareness, knowledge, skills, attitudes relating to relevant issues, law, contemporary practice and procedure in up to two additional PICs and increased cooperation, coordination and collaboration between stakeholder agencies to address relevant issues. Number of judicial officers trained and quality of training, including relevance, usefulness, skills and knowledge gained. participant TA 1.4 Public Information Project A portfolio of public information resources developed piloted and disseminated in one PIC available for adaption across the region. NA NA Baseline 2013: in most PICs no information is readily available to/accessible by the public about their legal rights/remedies and available court services; thereby preventing them from fully pursuing their rights/remedies and justice. Improved access to public information on legal rights/remedies and court services. The quality of the toolkit developed including brochures on legal rights/remedies and court services, tools for developing brochures and posters; newspaper and radio notices; community information presentations; and related training for court staff. Toolkit. TA
The MSC ensures that this initiative does not duplicate the work of other initiatives (eg RRRT). In its approach to implementation, the MSC will explore the possibility of adapting resources developed by other initiatives where appropriate rather than re-inventing the wheel to ensure cost-effectiveness and value for money. 2.0 Governance Greater judicial ownership of professional development across the region. Improvements in: judicial conduct and leadership; and local management and implementation of judicial development activities in up to four PICs. No CoJCs exist in the region based on and adapted from internationally recognised principles. No PIC driven or regionally coordinated options exist to enable ongoing judicial development regionally or lead/implement activities locally. Three CoJC exist in the region based on internationally recognised principles and a toolkit has been developed for other PICs to develop/revise codes. The toolkit is currently being piloted in one PIC. Improvements in judicial conducts are being assessed in 3 PICs; the results will be presented to the PEC by June 2013. PIC driven and regionally coordinated options to institutionalise judicial development have been developed and endorsed by the PEC. The MSC has analysed its experience implementing the PJDP and produced a lessons learned report which has been approved by the PEC. Continued improvements in standards of judicial leadership, integrity, programme management andimplementation of local judicial development activities. Level of improvement in judicial conduct. Self-assessment by JO and CO user surveys. NC fourPEC, three CJs and two NC meetings held, perceptions of quality of engagement by key stakeholders. Meeting reports and feedback. MSC All approved Responsive Fund activities achieve their objectives; are implemented on time and within budget with minimal assistance from the PJDP Team. NC reports and MSC confirmation. NC/MSC
in and direct judicial development across the region through ongoing support to networks of chief justices and their delegates for dialogue and sharing experience about aspects of judicial development, including programme management. consider it relevant to the development needs of their court and that it facilitates sharing solutions to common challenges national and regional levels. provided and levels of engagement at five regional leadership meetings and 33 approved Responsive Fund activities. engage with, and contribute input and strategic direction to PJDP Projects. nine. Participants' perceptions of the quality of the workshop and engagement with PJDP and regional counterparts. 2.3 Responsive Fund PICs increasingly manage their own locally-delivered development activities. 90% of Responsive Fund allocated in LoV9 expended, 70% of activities achieve their aims and with less support from the PJDP Team. No RF activities implemented. 19 RF activities were successfully completed by June 2012 in 12 PICs and 13 more applications have been approved since July 2012. All activities will be completed by June 2013. All PICs successfully develop their capabilities to formulate cogent applications to support priority development activities and implement associated activities which achieve their aims. Number of Responsive Fund applications successfully delivered with minimal assistance from the PJDP Team. The Responsive Fund managed effectively and efficiently (including financial expenditure) by the MSC. NC reports / MSC confirmation. MSC 6-monthly and annual progress reports. NC / MSC 2.4 National Judicial Development Committee (NJDC) Project The capabilities of one PIC to One PIC has established NJDCs NJDCs exist in some but not all PICs with ARegional NJDC toolkit is currently being developed and will be piloted in Samoa. APIC can strategically plan and manage their MSC assistance to strengthen NJDCs is tailored TA reports. TA
administration requirements; specifically relating to time standards and delay reduction, is enhanced. 3.2 Court Annual Reporting (formerly Performance Monitoring & Evaluation) Project Up to 6 courts publically reporting on performance on an annual basis across the region. All PICs have increased capacity to assess court performance and have access to the tools need to enable them to increase transparency and accountability through the development of Annual Court Reports. There is no PIC judicial and court baseline data utilising a common set of indicators. Annual judicial and court baseline data was and is again being collected in 14 PICs using a common set of 14 indicators developed for PJDP using a approach to judicial performance monitoring. The framework was approved by the PEC. There is now clarity as to the status quo of court performance across the region with second year data to be presented to the PEC by June 2013. This data will be considered to enable PICs to reflect on what further developments can be undertaken to improve performance in order to provide better justice services for court users. Coupled with the outcome of the Access to Justice pilot, at least 1 PIC will better understand what actual/potential court users need. In addition a toolkit has been developed and is being piloted in Tokelau to publish performance data among other information in annual court reports. When final, the toolkit will be disseminated to all PICs. Timely, accurate and comprehensive annual court reports published by up to three PICs that include relevant court data as well as court user feedback on barriers to accessing, satisfaction with, and confidence in the courts. Number of PICs producing an annual report published and the quality of the data contained therein. TA report & PEC/CJ assessment minuted. TA/ MSC Year two and four court performance trend data reported by PICs. Quality and breadth of data reported. TA report. TA Frequency and nature of references to performance data in court administrative and planning documents. NCs / PIC Courts.
expended owned by, delivers tangible benefits to PIC courts and which expends 90% of the approved budget. 100% of approved activities along with three additional activities All activities were completed to a highstandard with 82% of budget expended. collaborative and responsive programming and implementation, and the transparent administration of PJDP resources. Quality of logistics and progress reporting to enable activities to be implemented on time and within budget. Progress reports. MSC Quality of incorporation of cross-cutting issues (gender, human rights, sustainability) into appropriate activities. Comprehensive and accurate, evidence-based reporting (narrative and financial reporting) completed and submitted by MSC to MFAT on time. Strategies to incorporate issues. MSC TA progress and completion reports. MSC Reports (narrative and financial) All TAs MSC