WORCESTER Magistrates Court has come under heavy criticism in a "warts and all" report.
In the 83-page report, the Justices Chief Executive of the West Mercia Magistrates Courts Service calls for an investigation by the national audit office into why the magistrates courts in Worcester, Hereford and Kidderminster cost £4m a year to run.
In the report, Nick Jones said the private finance initiative has failed to deliver on a number of aspects in the courts.
"It is clear that Hereford and Worcester Magistrate's Court Committee should never have been chosen in 1996 as a Path Finder Project, he said in the report.
"There are a significant number of reason why another MCC area should have been chosen, moreover, the problems were well known."
He also criticises a variety of aspects of the court, from security to photocopying and identifies one of the problems as using sub-contractors.
"The cost of having additional furniture is expensive as the process allowed a third party to identify the furniture to be used. It is both expensive and not what court staff would have chosen."
Mr Jones adds there is too much furniture in the court rooms.
When moving into the new buildings the carpets were damaged, the buildings were dirty, and in Kidderminster the screens on the public security counter did not protect the staff.
Security in general and the lack of CCTV in public waiting areas were also criticised.
"Expectations as to security have not been met.
"In the case of the Worcester Courthouse, the layout of the building, matched with the deployment of security staff results in a scenario where adults are able to access the youth court area.
"Security staff appear to see their primary duty as searching those who enter court premises.
"On the first day of a courthouse opening, I asked security staff how they saw their roles. It was clear that they did not know what their responsibilities were."
Mr Jones also cites lack of any effective ventilation as a cause for concern.
"It is recommended that the National Audit Office investigates how a building was signed off as suitable for occupation, when it is transparent to all who use it that it is incapable of meeting the output specification regarding temperature."
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article