According to the data and the argument presented by Chief Justice Ivor Archie at the opening of the new law term, the High Court and Magistrates Courts have reached the limit of their efficiency levels under the present administrative system.
Moreover, given the restricted resources, human, physical and technological available to the courts there can be little expectation for major improvements in the system. The numbers and percentages of cases disposed of in relation to those filed are in decline; moreover, from the figures given, there continues to be an increase in the number of matters filed.
So there can be no realistic expectations that there are going to be improvements in the dispatch of cases; indeed, it is realistic to expect further decline if the system is not changed."We simply cannot go on this way," was the comment of the Chief Justice.
The social, economic and criminally-related impact on the society if the inefficiencies continue is too horrendous to contemplate. Moreover, the non-realisation of equity and justice is a hard blow to take, especially for people facing the court system without large quantities of resources to pay for delays, high-cost lawyers and the patience to go through the travail of postponements and other inconveniences that naturally flow from such inefficiencies.
When such aggravations and social inequity are factored into a political system filled with conflict, the troubles arising from an inefficient judicial system will further burden the society.As identified by CJ Archie, the main solutions lie in the direction of increased usage of technology, significant change in the rules and procedures followed by the courts and greater discipline and less selfishness on the part of lawyers in the system.
Very important too, as argued by the CJ, is the allocation of financial resources to the Judiciary to attract high-level professionals and of course the long-standing agitation for higher salaries for judges and magistrates. Then there is the issue of eliminating or transforming the system of trial by jury, which is said to be horribly inefficient and not always capable of providing the best decisions.
In addition, technological innovation has to get over the hump of antiquated thinking, fear and suspicion of the technology, perhaps embedded even within the Judiciary itself and the failure to realise the technological world is galloping forward.The challenge is to stimulate the willingness to change the rules and systems and laws to make it possible to use technology to the fullest.
Incidentally, it is interesting that the CJ cited the fact that plea-bargaining legislation has been passed and implemented in a number of Eastern Caribbean countries.Recognising professionalism and paying for it within the Judiciary are potentially contentious matters. Such payments will no doubt trigger other justified claims elsewhere in the economy.The patriots will argue why must it be money; why can't it be love for country?
But the counter-claim will be as powerful. Lawyers who choose to sit on the Bench give up private practices that are far more lucrative. Should more attractive remuneration be offered to judges in order to attract the brightest and the best?Clearly there are no easy solutions. Perhaps the Chief Justice should take responsibility for outlining a comprehensive programme for change, which can then trigger a national debate.