Project Workstream:

Information Systems (IS)

Project SRO:

Rowena Collins-Rice

Project Director:

Charles McCall

IS Project Manager

Kevin Dalby

IS Workstream Manager - Infrastructure

Graham Mackenzie

IS Workstream Manager - Applications

Laura Bushell

Last Amended

19 May 08

Version

V1.0

Project Code

A204

File location (TRIM)

Operational - Supreme Court Implementation Programme - Supreme Court Information Systems Project - Statement of requirements (OPR/063/010/30)

Version Number

Version Date

Summary of Changes

Author

0.1

10/03/08

First draft

Laura Bushell

0.1

27/04/08

First draft - incorporate review comments from Kevin Dalby and Graham Mackenzie

Laura Bushell

1.0

09/06/08

Second draft following comments from Herbert Street, Charles McCall, Stephen Foot and Kevin Dalby

Laura Bushell

Number

Description

Priority

Comment

1.1.1

All services described in this paper must be compliant with departmental and government I.T security policies.

The Ministry of Justice's IT security policy supports the Ministry of Justice security policy and has the same authority and applicability. This IT security policy is derived from the national government security policy, as defined within the manual of protective security, and is compliant with the British standard for information security management (BS7799 - Part 2).

The department's IT systems are crucial to the effective running of the department's business. The objective of IT security is to ensure business continuity and minimise damage by preventing and minimising the impact of IT security incidents.

This policy applies to all of the department's IT systems, including those provided or managed by an IT service provider. It covers the use of IT equipment, the information processed on those systems and documentation about those systems, irrespective of location.

M

For clarity, the system will be installed on MOJ environment and will therefore be subject to the standard MOJ facilities and limits. However, Supreme Court reserves the right to differ if this inhibits business performance.

1.1.2

The system must pre-populate standard letters and templates drawing on metadata already stored in the underlying systems, parties names, addresses, dates etc

M

1.1.4

Appropriate error message should be displayed when a user attempts to make an invalid entry

S

1.1.5

Users must enter the system via a desktop icon on a Supreme Court networked PC.

M

1.1.6

The supplier must detail any additional hardware required to deliver the solution over and above the standard MOJ build.

M

1.1.7

High speed scanner(s) will be required, scanning software must interface with the Supreme Court system to ensure the user can save scanned documents seamlessly from the scanner onto the case record.

M

The supplier is not required to supply scanners as part of this requirement

1.1.8

A function must be provided for all dates to be manually excluded for any time calculation. To specify working and sitting days for the purpose of calculating timelimits, for prompts or actions and to set the sitting days in the diary function. This function must be provided by the user level supervisor.

M

1.1.8

All functions described in this requirement must allow for multi-user access, creation, entry and deletion. But also be possible to restrict, e.g. only certain user levels can delete certain information. Depending on user level

M

1.1.9

The system must have a thin-client web-based interface

M

1.1.10

The system must be equally accessible remotely via secure logon from any internet connected computer

M

1.1.11

The Justices should be able to logon from home or via their judicial laptops to the system without using a key fob or other additional security device

S

It is recognised that when on other internet-connected computers a key fob (or other additional security device) is likely to be necessary.

1.1.12

The system must provide a search facility using a variety of search criteria, case name and number, case type, date of final judgement and date of issue

M

Number

Description

Priority

Comment

1.1.13

The system must be capable of allocating a unique complaint reference number for each case entered on the system

M

1.1.14

The system must be capable of producing standard letters which will form the basis of a response to a complaint

M

1.1.15

The system must allow for the complaint to be sub-categorised by way of complaint type

M

House of Lords

JCPC

Information

2005

2006

2005

2006

Applications for leave to appeal presented

240

219

38

60

Appeals presented

87

73

71

105

Days sat

120

109

89

103

Appeals disposed of

102

94

57

70

Devolution Appeals

4

2

Number

Description

Priority

Comment

1.1.16

Case Management System must be Sufficiently intuitive and user friendly to operate such that minimal user training is required. In particular:

1.1.16.1 Each screen should be clear and easy to read

1.1.16.2 Users should not have to scroll up or down to see information on a screen Clear error messages must be presented

1.1.16.3 The help function for key fields must be clear and presented in plain english

1.1.16.4 Navigation between screens must be presented clearly - for example next and previous buttons, Indicators that system has completed an action and indicators when it is necessary for user to wait for system to process something

1.1.16.5 Seamless link between the case progression screens, the document repository and calendar function

1.1.17

The system must require case data to be entered only once.

M

1.1.18

The system must allow the electronic receipt of applications to initiate a case, case papers and correspondence and from commencement of the Supreme Court.

M

1.1.19

The system must be able to store unique case information, as input by the administration including: the names of the parties; the type of appeal; details of legal representation for each party, details of order appealed against; details of Lower court appealed against and jurisdiction.

M

1.1.21

The system must include a diary reminder function or ability to produce a daily report that notifies the administration of due dates for completion of events on individual cases.

M

1.1.22

The system must provide a facility to link to electronic communications (e.g. email) between the Court and parties to the case stored in the Document Repository by reference to the individual case to which the Parties to the case can include:

M

1.1.23

The system must be able to export details of the case and parties onto the Supreme Court and JCPC websites these include:

1.1.24

The system must be capable of exporting decisions on applications and judgements on appeals. In the appeal cases of great interest press releases and/or lay summaries must be made available

M

1.1.25

The system must provide a facility to link to the electronic case documentation stored in the Document Repository from the case record in the case progression module.

M

1.1.26

The system must provide a seamless link to the Diary management function and back

M

1.1.27

The system must allow the listing of:

1.1.27.2 Cross- applications

1.1.27.3 Intervener applications

M

1.1.28

The system must prompt the user when fields have not been completed/populated i.e. at point of data entry user must be prompted if mandatory field not completed or field completed in wrong format.

M

1.1.29

The system must provide a facility that allows for the production of standard templates. Either letters or directions/orders, populated with case specific information obtained from the data retained within the system.

M

1.1.30

The system must provide a facility to store any completed templates and letters produced. As part of the audit record for the management of a case through the full process, and to allow for any future retrieval of templates produced

M

1.1.31

The system must provide a facility to produce and store the case summary in an exportable web format.

M

1.1.32

The system must provide a facility to produce and store the final judgment of the Court in an exportable web format. The judgment is the final order outlining the overall ruling on the appeal and the views of the individual Justices who participated in the appeal.

M

1.1.33

The system must record the receipt of either fees and the value of the fee or fees exemption requests when lodging appeals or leave to appeal. The system will not be required to perform a financial accounting functionality.

M

The fees schedule is currently in draft and is due to be finalised in 2008

1.1.34

The system must connect the diary reminder function to the requirement to produce standard letters, notices and forms for distribution to parties

M

1.1.35

The system must provide a facility that allows for the effective progression of the taxation of costs procedures defined in business process diagrams. To include the production of standard letters, notices and forms, together with the production of the final costs order. The system will not be required to perform a financial accounting functionality to calculate the costs, merely track and record progression of taxation (Bill of costs) cases.

M

1.1.36

The system must be accessible to the Justices and Administration via a departmental device regardless of their location through secure broadband.

M

1.1.37

The system should generate a separate unique identifier sequence to distinguish between JCPC and Supreme Court cases.

S

1.1.38

The system must badge the Supreme Court and JCPC cases as separate systems and ring fence them within the same system.

M

1.1.39

The standing data in the implemented system must be able to be configured locally by authorised court staff as required by court procedural changes.

M

1.1.40

The standard templates, correspondence and notices should be clearly defined as JCPC or Supreme Court to ensure the independence of each court

M

1.1.41

The system could have wireless networking capability within the Supreme Court building for the Justices to allow them full network access from portable devices (laptops, PDAs etc)

C

1.1.42

The system must provide access to a restricted level of case information via the Supreme Court website to parties to the case via secure sign on.

M

Number

Description

Priority

Comment

1.1.43

The system must allow event types to be set up by User Administrator as a pick table

M

List of required fields listed at Annex E

1.1.44

The system must provide for event sub-types to be set up as a pick table to further define events

M

List of required fields listed at Annex E

1.1.45

The system must allow the set up standard events that will act as triggers for creating events in Cases when required.

M

1.1.46

The triggering event must provide these parameters:

1.1.46.1 Identification of one or more further events that are expected to follow the specified event

1.1.46.2 A set time limit in days within which each expected further event should occur without an overdue prompt being signalled

1.1.46.3 One or more event types (e.g. document types) that will identify what events (e.g. documents) will be provided when the event occurs (e.g. document arrives).

1.1.46.4 If the case needs referring to the Justice/Registrar

1.1.46.5 Whether or not the event closes the case.

M

1.1.47

The system must allow for a choice of timescales within an event if necessary. The standard timescale which an event will occur may vary for two reasons:

M

1.1.48

The system must provide facilities for a variation of timescales from the set process flow if required (as set up by the System Administrator) to be associated with the event.

M

1.1.49

For any case it must be possible to add events from a set list of additional events and identify them by picking the event type from a table. This function will be controlled by the Systems Administrator

M

1.1.50

It must be possible for the user to create non-standard events - that do not have expected following events - but with the ability to specify a due date after which a prompt will be displayed if the event has not been marked as complete or the prompt cancelled from the case

M

1.1.51

It must be possible for users to create free-standing events - ie which do not affect a particular case. From a set list of additional events. This function will be controlled by the systems administrator.

M

1.1.52

It should be possible to display a list of all events that have been entered for a case.

S

Number

Description

Priority

Comment

1.1.53

When adding an event there must be an option to set up a prompt(s) to notify the user when an action is due.

M

For clarity, not all events will generate prompts.

1.1.54

It must be possible for the Systems Administrator to cancel any prompt. The System Administrator must be able to cancel the following prompts:

M

For clarity, Cancel Prompts will be available for display for users with management or administrator rights

1.1.55

It must be possible to set up prompts with a `multiparty' option. A case can have more than one party, when an action is due it must be possible to specify which party has completed the event whilst continuing to track parties that have not completed the event.

M

Number

Description

Priority

Comment

1.1.56

The system must allow a user to record details of the customers preferred method of contact - telephone, email, fax or letter

M

1.1.57

The system must allow the user free range narrative to record details of contact, reason for call, matter discussed

M

Number

Description

Priority

Comment

1.1.58

The system must provide a listing facility to:

1.1.58.1 Allow cases to be allocated to a panel of Justices

1.1.58.2 Allocate a particular courtroom on a particular day

1.1.58.3 At specified time according to hearing time estimates and availability of legal representatives.

M

1.1.59

The system must provide viewable, printable electronic cause lists populated from case summary field Providing full parties, representative and case details for the court and high-level case name and party details for public lists.

M

1.1.60

The system must have the facility to produce cause lists in termly, weekly and daily formats.

M

1.1.61

The system must provide a facility to store cause lists in an exportable web format to enable the cause lists to be exported daily to the Supreme Court and JCPC websites

M

1.1.62

The system could be able to allocate a Justice to an application for appeal (based on calendar availability and expertise) and manage it proactively with the help of prompting technology throughout its lifecycle.

C

1.1.63

The system must be able to support the administrative functions of the JCPC.

M

1.1.64

A separate diary must be available for JCPC cases to be listed

M

1.1.65

To ensure that Justices and the Administration can work remotely and access the case information when not at Middlesex Guildhall, i.e. from home. The system should be accessible to the Justices and Administration regardless of their location

S

1.1.66

The diary must have controls built in to ensure that over listing does not occur. The facility to overwrite these controls must be possible at management level.

M

Number

Description

Priority

Comment

1.1.67

The DRS will enable the court to receive documents in a variety of ways and for the court to store them electronically. Parties will be able to lodge documents (in predefined or specified formats by providing the court with the documents on DVD/CD-ROM/memory stick.

M

1.1.68

The DRS will provide a seamless link to the case progression system and Diary/Calendar Management System.

M

1.1.69

The Supreme Court Justices and Justices Assistants must be able to view the electronic case bundle for each appeal securely, regardless of their location. To ensure that Justices and Justices Assistants can work remotely and access the case bundle when not at Middlesex Guildhall, via a departmental device regardless of their location through secure broadband. i.e. from home.

M

1.1.70

The DRS must allow the user to search for previous applications for leave, appeals, case summaries, decisions and judgments (since the inception of the Supreme Court by:

M

1.1.71

The Administration must be able to export the electronic hearing bundle in a common media format to the in-court PC.

M

1.1.72

The system must allow the facility to mark up or bookmark specific sections of the case bundle. To allow the Justices to upload the version of the bundle annotated in court and enable a slimmed-down version of the bundle, consisting of only the booked marked pages/passages, to be automatically generated and printed upon return to the office.

M

1.1.73

The system must allow for updated versions of the same document to be filed and maintain version control and not overwrite earlier versions. The legal teams will be required to provide an updated case bundle if `11^th hour' authorities are lodged.

M

The Administration will not be responsible for incorporating late authorities within the case bundle.

1.1.74

Each Justices' own documents must be presented as a navigable and searchable document library, categorised by document type and case (as appropriate) accessible by the relevant Justice

M

1.1.75

The DRS must provide access for the Justices and Justices Assistants, whilst in the courtroom, to the electronic case bundle via their IT client device (e.g. Laptop PC) hardware solution.

M

1.1.76

The DRS must be of sufficient speed. The Justices and Administration will not expect to spend significant time accessing the system to view the electronic case bundle.

M

1.1.77

An associated case folder should be generated automatically within the DRS once a full appeal notice is registered on the CPS.

S

1.1.78

The Legal teams could securely export the electronic case file direct to the DRS via the internet.

C

1.1.79

The system could provide a facility to store the broadcast recording for each individual appeal hearing on the case file as part of the records management requirement before exporting to standard portable media after an agreed period. Only the substantive appeal hearing will be stored as part of the overall case record. This requirement has yet to be finalised, and is due to be included within the Practice directions in 2008.

C

1.1.80

The system must apply version control to all documents.

M

1.1.81

The system must have the facility to record the following dates in relation to any document:

1.1.81.1 Date of Receipt

1.1.81.2 Date created (not template creation date)

1.1.81.3 Date saved onto the system, 1.1.81.4 Date amended

1.1.81.5 Date deleted.

M

1.1.82

The System must have the facility to view different versions of a record or document held within the System.

M

1.1.83

An online filing facility will require access to a payment engine, to enable court fees to be paid by credit/debit cards, or on account, as appropriate

M

1.1.84

The DRS must enable the Justices to produce and securely store judgements and non-judicial documents (e.g conference speeches, lectures etc).

M

1.1.85

All documents must be available via the intranet (including remotely) so that they are available from anywhere without the use of memory sticks and other portable media

M

1.1.86

The DRS must allow web browser access both within the Supreme Court and remotely via secure logon over the internet.

M

1.1.87

The system must accept the electronic filing of documents and whole bundles/bound volumes via the Supreme Court website.

Online filing, as opposed to other forms of e-filing should become increasingly mandatory. This will be stipulated in the appropriate practice direction.

M

In due course the concept of bundle/bound volume filing will take account of the fact that its constituent parts can be filed separately, although they will remain inter-linked by hyperlinks

1.1.88

The system must allow the filing of documents and whole bundles/bound volumes in electronic form on CD.DVD or memory stick.

The intention is that online filing via the Supreme Court website will increasingly supersede these other forms of electronic filing. This will be stipulated in the appropriate practice direction.

M

1.1.89

The system must allow court users to be able to securely view appropriate aspects of their application and appeal information via secure logon

M

1.1.90

The DRS could provide increased electronic collaboration between Justices in the drafting of judgments, whilst retaining the integrity of the master version. Functionality desired includes:

1.1.90.1 Version control to control

document integrity

1.1.90.2 Track changes and comments feature in word to clearly record collaboration process. Track changes must be removed in the master versions

C

1.1.91

The System must meet current best practice for electronic records management. For the UK, this is set out in the series of publications from The National Archive (TNA). TNA, formerly known as the Public Records Office (PRO), published `Electronic Records Management Systems' in 2002. [Will suppliers have these and will whole of these publications apply? - Currently seeking clarification as to what/how much information is relevant]

M

This comprises of a statement of requirements, metadata standards and definitions of terms in three documents

These can be found at: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/electronicrecords/reqs2002/

Number

Description

Priority

Comment

1.1.92

The system must provide a facility for interrogating all data fields and reporting on them using standard reports and ad-hoc reports configurable by The Court. The supplier must supply a list of all standard reports with example layouts and detail of how ad-hoc reports and queries are produced. It would also help if we could list the key reports we would like including key/sort fields.

M

1.1.93

The system must be able to generate the following reports for both the JCPC and Supreme Court:

1.1.93.1 Numbers of petitions, types of cases and from which jurisdiction

(country and type of case)

1.1.93.2 Numbers of petitions turned down and reasons

1.1.93.3 Details of the order being appealed ie names of Judges, Court appealed from and date order made

1.1.93.4 Information about the parties involved ie which party is the

appellant/respondent; address and other information; details of counsel.

1.1.93.5 For criminal cases it will be necessary to retrieve details about the victims family

1.1.93.6 Ancillary applications eg for expedition, for permission to

intervene, degree of sensitivity etc

1.1.93.7 Information about documents ie what bundles have been filed and what additional documents are awaited

1.1.93.8 Name of Judicial Assistant who is

Assisting and any deadlines/targets for the Judicial Assistants

1.1.93.9Name of the Law Reporter who will be working on this case

1.1.93.10 General progress of application/appeal ie relevant target dates

for referral to panel, target for listing etc

1.1.93.11 Judicial directions/orders ie details of Justices who granted

permission in any directions given as to expedition, constitution of

appeal court, number of Justices to sit

1.1.93.12 Judgment - name of Justice giving the judgment; date of circulation of draft; comments/further judgments anticipated

and types of cases heard plus outcomes

dealt with

1.1.93.15 Details of cases heard outside of London

M

1.1.94

The system must be able to generate the following reports for taxation of costs for both the JCPC and SC:

1.1.94.1 Number of bills in respect of applications

1.1.94.2 Number of bills in respect of appeals

1.1.94.3 Dates of lodgement

1.1.94.4 Dates of taxation

1.1.94.5 Number of inter parties, legal aid (and within that s. 11 claims against LSC or unsuccessful funded client claims) or criminal bills

1.1.94.6 Number of bills from the different jurisdictions

1.1.94.7 Amounts claimed

1.1.94.8 Amounts taxed off

1.1.94.9 Net amounts allowed

1.1.94.10 Taxing fees

1.1.94.11 Certificate details

M

1.1.95

The system must be able to generate the following reports for judicial statistics on taxation of costs for both the JCPC and SC:

1.1.95.1 Number of petitions for leave

1.1.95.2 Total allowed on taxed bills in respect of pets for leave

1.1.95.3 Average number allowed

1.1.95.4 Number of petitions of appeal

1.1.95.5 Total allowed on taxed bills in respect of petitions of appeal

1.1.95.6 Average number allowed.

1.1.95.9 Volumes on lodging of security money

1.1.95.10 Number of costs orders made

M

Number

Description

Priority

Comment

1.1.96

The minimum requirements must be a record of::

1.1.96.1 Login time and date

1.1.96.2 Case creation, including the date and time that a case was created, and by whom.

1.1.96.3 Addition of document to an event (a document may be a file such as a word document, an email, spreadsheet etc.)

1.1.96.4 Change User Profile

1.1.96.5 Logout time and date

1.1.96.6 Remove document from efile and mark on case record

M

1.1.97

The system must provide a facility to allow the creation of some standard audit reports that can be generated, daily, weekly, monthly or annually. The system administrator shall have the provision to create these reports. The reports would only make use of the audit logs fields.

M

1.1.98

It should be possible to record every activity that occurs on a case as an event.

S

1.1.99

Cancelled prompts must not normally appear on screen against a case but will remain in the system and carry audit trail information.

M

1.1.100

It must be possible to display a list of all non-cancelled prompts that have been entered for a case together with their due dates, who cancelled them, when they were cancelled and why they were cancelled.

M

For clarity, The prompts will be listed in due date order showing the most urgent at the top.

1.1.101

The system must be able to identify the user who received, created, saved, amended or deleted a document/record through the use of a User stamp setting out the User, date and time the event took place.

M

Number

Description

Priority

Comment

1.1.102

The system must be configured to enable a retention period to be set by default and then allow records pertaining to a case to be identified for potential destruction or preservation after the set retention period has expired.

M

The retention period for the JCPC is currently being agreed, it may not fully align with Supreme Court retention rules

1.1.103

Supreme Court and JCPC Managers should be able to select cases for permanent preservation.

S

1.1.104

The system must indicate the retention schedule assigned for each case.

M

1.1.105

The system must archive case records and associated documentation for the Supreme Court 7 years from date the case is closed. Unless the system administrator excludes a case from this process

M

1.1.106

The system must archive case records and associated documentation for the JCPC ** years from date the case is closed. Unless the system administrator excludes

M

The retention period for the JCPC is currently being agreed, it may not fully align with Supreme Court retention rules

1.1.107

The archived case documents and case data must be able to be to be retrieved for viewing prior to destruction.

M

This function does not necessarily need to be performed by the system as long as the records are accessible

1.1.108

The system must enable closed cases to be retained longer than retention schedule (before destruction) if case details are requested for another case.

M

1.1.109

The Supreme Court must ensure that case data and documents associated with the case are destroyed simultaneously.

M

1.1.110

The system must not allow automatic deletion of documents.

M

1.1.111

The system must maintain a history of changes to retention schedules, the date the change was made, and the reason for the change along with who made the change.

M

1.1.112

The system must provide a mechanism for the definition and later amendment of retention & disposal rules if the retention periods change.

M

1.1.113

The system must allow production of lists on a annual basis that detail the case records that are required for destruction that year, where the paper file is located and any linked cases still active.

M

Number

Description

Priority

Comment

1.1.114

The system must have appropriate levels of backup and disaster recovery procedures in place to protect the work of the Supreme Court

M

1.1.115

The system should be accessible to the Justices and Administration regardless of their location.

S

1.1.116

The system must have as a minimum equal Service levels as currently provided by PICT for the JO, the current JO Service Desk opening hours are:

Monday - Thursday

Friday

8.30 am - 8.00 pm

8.30 am - 6.00 pm

8.30 am - 6.00 pm

Monday - Friday

11.00 am - 3.00 pm

Saturday and Sunday

M

1.1.117

The system must as a minimum provide equal levels of remote access as currently provided by PICT for the JO. There are currently four forms of remote access available to the JO:

1.1.117.1 Dial-up (Citrix): this is provided within the UK (free of charge via a

0800 number) and abroad (chargeable to the Member by the

telephone provider) from any computer equipped with a modem and

which is running the Windows 2000 operating system or later. It

works from any mainstream telephone system. The necessary

software is supplied as standard on all official laptop computers. A

CD with installation and operational documentation can be provided

For Members wishing to use private computers.

1.1.117.2 Members who borrow an official laptop computer are eligible to

apply for a connection to the internet and Parliament via a high

speed “ADSL Broadband” line installed in their homes. There is no

charge for this service. This is known as “ISP/VPN”. ISP refers to the

fact that Members will receive one free Internet connection from

Parliament's own Internet Service Provider. This connection can be

Used to access the internet without first needing to connect to

Parliament. Members who then wish to connect to Parliament can do

So via the internet using a “virtual private network” (VPN)

Connection.

1.1.117.3 Members who wish to work from any computer or any internet

connection - including commercial offices, airports, cafés, etc - are

now able to use the new SSL service. This allows access to

Parliamentary e-mail and the intranet and related Parliamentary

Information systems from any mainstream Internet browser,

Including non-Windows computers and private computers. For

Security reasons, Members are issued with a key-sized “SSL token”

Which generates an additional password. There is no charge for

Access to the service, although Members will need to provide or pay

For the cost of the internet connection.

1.1.117.4 Mobile computing: this provides remote access to Parliamentary email,

calendar, contacts, and other functions using a Personal Digital

Assistant (PDA) or SmartPhone that synchronises automatically over

The mobile telephone network. In contrast to synchronising Outlook

Via a cable connected to a PC, the information on the device is kept

Up to date while on the move, and is updated as frequently as the 54

User requires (immediately, every 10 minutes, hourly etc) providing

There is an adequate mobile telephone signal. The PDAs are multifunctional

Devices, including mobile Word and Excel, a web browser,

And other software. The devices work as mobile phones and include predictive text messaging.

M

Number

Description

Priority

Comment

1.1.118

The Contractor must use the model court for all aspects of testing including Factory Acceptance Tests (FAT), User Acceptance Tests (UAT) and performance.

M

1.1.119

The model court must be used for all performance, regression and user acceptance testing.

M

1.1.120

The Contractor must produce the test data but it must be approved by MOJ.

M

1.1.121

The test environment must not use live data and any outputs produced must be clearly marked as test outputs and be directed to dedicated printers in the test environment.

M

1.1.122

For performance/capacity/stress testing the test environment must have the same capacity as the live environment and be the same size/contain the same

M

1.1.123

The MOJ and Contractor must agree upon a process for prioritising and classifying software defects and enhancements.

M

Number

Description

Priority

Comment

1.1.124

The Contractor must co-ordinate and run UAT of the system.

M

1.1.125

The UAT scripts must be provided by the MOJ but must include input from Contractor and be agreed by Contractor.

M

1.1.126

UAT must be conducted by the Supreme Court and JCPC users under the supervision of the MOJi.

M

1.1.127

UAT must be performed on all new releases of the system prior to rollout.

M

1.1.128

The Contractor MUST produce a UAT report for MOJ to sign off UAT as satisfactory.

M

The Test Strategy will provide details of Acceptance Criteria.

Number

Description

Priority

Comment

1.1.129

The Contractor (assisted by key MOJ, JO and JCPC staff / users) must successfully perform full regression testing for changes as appropriate and for new releases.

M

Content of Regression Tests to be agreed

1.1.130

Contractor must advise MOJ where it is not considered appropriate to conduct full regression testing.

M

Number

Description

Priority

Comment

1.1.131

The Contractor must make available the results of all performance tests to form a benchmark for future reference and to inform the agreement with MOJ of a SLA covering performance levels for the system.

M

Performance tests and acceptance criteria to be determined and detailed in the MOJ Testing Strategy.

Number

Description

Priority

Comment

1.1.132

The Contractor must organise Site Acceptance testing.

M

1.1.134

The Site Acceptance scripts must be agreed with the MOJ prior to the tests.

M

1.1.135

The Contractor and MOJ must agree whether Site Acceptance testing is required for a new version of the system.

M

1.1.136

The MOJ must indicate acceptance of (Site Acceptance) upgrades prior to the upgrade going live.

M

Number

Description

Priority

Comment

1.1.137

The CCN procedure must follow the standard MOJ agreements.

M