You are here
CJ on proclamation of Justice Act: Judiciary was in dark
Published:
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Chief Justice Ivor Archie inspects the guard of honour outside the Hall of Justice during yesterday’s opening of the 2012-2013 law term. PHOTO: ABRAHAM DIAZ
Chief Justice Ivor Archie says the Judiciary never advised or contemplated the partial implementation of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Offences) Act. He said so yesterday while delivering his annual address at the opening of the new law term at the Convocation Hall, Hall of Justice, Port-of-Spain. Archie described the implementation of the act as a “mammoth undertaking” and said it could not be realistically implemented before January 2013. He said: “It has always been our position, and we so advised, that implementation could not realistically take place before the first quarter of 2013 and we in the judiciary have never discussed or contemplated partial implementation.” The central theme of the recent legislation is to abolish preliminary enquiries in the magistrates court for indictable criminal offences. The enquiries will be replaced by sufficiency hearings which would take place before a High Court Master. Archie promised the Judiciary would work hard to meet the proposed deadline but noted the process should not be rushed, which may lead to new backlogs in the administration of justice.
“We must and will resist any temptation to make a premature start in the eagerness to demonstrate ‘performance.’ All the ducks must be lined up, or chaos will ensue right after start-up,” Archie warned. The issue of the early proclamation of Section 34 of the act on August 31, was first raised in an exclusive Sunday Guardian story almost two weeks ago. The section was eventually repealed during an emergency sitting of Parliament last week.
Archie said there were approximately 14,000 new criminal matters filed in the court system annually which the controversial act sought to address. He said: “It is clear that any new system that is put in place will have to absorb a huge influx of new matters in addition to those already in the system, for which transitional arrangements have to be made. “Courtrooms, registries and monitoring and compliance units have to be established.” In addition to the legislation, Archie said the Judiciary had compiled a draft of new Criminal Procedure Rules, which would also seek to eliminate procedural delays in criminal trials in the High Court. A similar set of rules currently exists for civil litigation (Civil Procedure Rules 1998) which gives attorneys and judges directions on case management and procedure. “Trials have now become impossibly convoluted with a multiplicity of applications at a preliminary stage and later on during the course of a trial,” Archie said.
While giving some statistics from last year’s law term, Archie said only 64 matters had been disposed of in the High Court. He attributed the dire figure to the need for new case-management strategies, as well as a shortage of criminal defence lawyers. The figures given by Archie relating to civil cases in the High Court, showed an improvement on previous years with him noting that cases were being disposed of within two years of them being filed. “There was an increase of six per cent in filings last year from 4,935 to 5,228. Total number of matters determined was 5,439, up from 4,707,” Archie said. He also highlighted several current initiatives of the Judiciary which he said would improve the courts’ efficency as well as reducing the backlog of cases. Those included, he said, the introduction of the Drug Treatment Court and modernisation of court support services, infrastructure and information systems. He added: “We recognise that the maintenance of public trust and confidence in the administration of justice is central to our remit. In that regard, we continue our efforts to ensure timely, fair and effective delivery of justice.”
Disclaimer
User comments posted on this website are the sole views and opinions of the comment writer and are not representative of Guardian Media Limited or its staff. Guardian Media Limited accepts no liability and will not be held accountable for user comments.
Please help us keep out site clean from inappropriate comments by using the flag option.
Guardian Media Limited reserves the right to remove, to edit or to censor any comments. Any content which is considered unsuitable, unlawful or offensive, includes personal details, advertises or promotes products, services or websites or repeats previous comments will be removed.
Before posting, please refer to the Community Standards, Terms and conditions and Privacy Policy