Letter of the Day | Systems must deliver timely justice
Published:Wednesday | December 4, 2024 | 12:06 AM
THE EDITOR, Madam:
The 2011 Charter of Fundamental Rights makes it abundantly clear (Section 16, Subsections 1 and 2) that we are all guaranteed not only a fair hearing, but to have that hearing delivered in a “reasonable time”. The courts, and all other bodies adjudicating on the rights of Jamaicans, must endeavour to deliver justice in a timely manner to avoid trampling on our guaranteed rights.
The decisions of our courts, when called upon to determine the question of unreasonable delays, are numerous, and it is well settled that delay may deny justice. In 1993, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the PC), in the case of a delay of 14 years in carrying out the sentence of death on Pratt and Morgan, decided that in cases of excessive delay, the sentence of death should be commuted to life. Though the delay was a shameful 14 years, the PC ruled that a five-year delay would amount to inhumane and degrading punishment. The Charter, 18 years later in 2011, sought to remove delays in carrying out executions as a ground to commute the death sentence to one of life. But, even before being sentenced, the Constitution (Section14 (3)) demands that any person who is arrested or detained must be brought “forthwith or as soon as is reasonably practicable” before an officer or court for the question of bail to be determined.
In the Pratt and Morgan case – after setting out the journey of the men through the justice system from 1977 to 1993, a total of 16 years – the PC, at paragraph two of the case, pronounced:
“The statement of these bare facts is sufficient to bring home to the mind of any person of normal sensitivity and compassion the agony of mind that these men must have suffered as they have alternated between hope and despair in the 14 years that they have been in prison facing the gallows.”
Hugh Thompson and Ernest Smith and Others vs The Attorney General is a civil case concerning delay in which I appeared. A High Court judge reserved his judgment in October 2013, and, after two years, went off on retirement in 2015 without delivery of the judgment. The court ruled that the litigants – who were all lawyers – should be granted constitutional compensation for the delay on the judge’s part. The incident leading to the matter being heard by the Constitutional Court started in 2003, when the lawyers’ offices were unlawfully invaded and searched by the police.
In our parish court, in its civil division for the Corporate Area, if you go to the intake window and file your case today, your first hearing – not for the trial of the matter – is a late January 2025 date.
Recalcitrant tenants and debtors take advantage of these delays. They know the system leads to frustration, and thrive on its inability to deliver results in a timely manner.
In the Supreme Court – even after great efforts by the chief justice to fast-track cases, after filing your case in the Supreme Court registry– the case management hearing is likely to be in six to nine months’ time and, at that hearing , you are likely to get a trial date for a few years after.
If you are unable to settle disputes between citizens in a reasonable time – be it in civil or criminal matters – you are, like it or not, feeding the crime rate. You frustrate people who seek redress in the system. This leads to cynicism towards the justice system. People are afraid to invest here because of the delays, and ultimately, they do not find our country a place where they can do business, raise families, and thrive in peace and harmony with each other.
BERT SAMUELS
Attorney-at-Law