Once again a leading judge has chosen to berate the Department of Public Prosecutions because a case before him has had to be adjourned part heard - because crucial documents had not been served on time. It is essential that the court protocols be followed to the letter of the law to avoid further appeals demanding that the verdict be set aside and the case listed for retrial.
This case concerned a dangerous driving incident where a car intruded onto a footpath and fatally injured a sixteen year old schoolgirl. The family of the deceased were awaiting their opportunity to deliver a victim impact statement when it was discovered that this omission had occurred.
What irked the judge is the casual attitude of both the DPP and counsel for the defence in following court procedure. It is of little consequence to both sides if a case does not proceed but it is of immense importance to the families of all concerned where a death has occurred. Usually, one person is waiting to hear what fate is delivering by way of punishment and the family of the victim are hoping to put the matter to rest and move on with their lives.
It is also the " last minute " way of announcing such an adjournment that angers many people. The court convenes with the judge waiting to finalise the case. Those concerned are in the courtroom - when counsel drops the bombshell. The frustration is palpable. Apart from the emotional tension the case arouses, many witnesses and others with involvement may have taken long and costly journeys in the expectation of finality. Overnight accommodation may be involved. It is simply grossly unfair if this failure to proceed is because of sheer negligence by either DPP or defence.
DPP will likely claim to be under resourced and blame the need for more staff to alleviate this situation but those who work in administering the law tend to become removed from the fact that they are dealing with the lives and emotions of other human beings. Each case becomes more like the movement of pieces on a Chess board - and like Chess - different values apply to the figures designated. Unfortunately, the great majority are regarded as mere " pawns " - to be sacrificed where necessary in the tactical game to achieve a " win " !
There will obviously be circumstances where delay is unavoidable, but court procedure could be improved by introducing a scale of " consequences " to the delay process. It should only be in the most extraordinary that a case not proceed on the day of a hearing because of a lack of documents exchanged. As things stand, that is now the normal procedure because it is the way the court process evolved.
Perhaps we could learn from the points disqualification method used to punish motorists for driving offences. Those who make a living in the legal profession rely on their reputation to advance in seniority and attract custom. Were it possible for judges to award an "incompetence " point to an individual where a glaring lack of procedure delayed a case outcome the media would be sure to male the accumulation of such discredit points known to the public.
The surest way to get individuals in both the DPP and defence to ensure that papers are served on time and that their case is ready to proceed - is the threat that failure can have unpleasant consequences that impinge on their standing in the legal community.
Most people obey the law because of a fear of the consequences. There is no reason why that principle should not also apply in legal circles !
No comments:
Post a Comment