Justice - Delayed !

Justice means different things to victims of crime and those accused of being the perpetrator. Both want the matter settled as speedily as possible, and in the court system applicable here in New South Wales clogged courts are seeing some prisoners serve years in prison on remand before they even go to trial and in others trial is abandoned simply because the time factor has allowed crucial evidence to evaporate !

In a recent case,  a man accused of sexual assault has been granted bail and is free to again walk the streets of Sydney simply because there is a two year wait before his case can be squeezed into a local court for a committal hearing.   Such a committal hearing examines the facts and evidence to determine if the case is strong enough to go before a judge and jury - and if so it will  again join another long queue for court time.

In another recent case a man accused of killing five members of his family was granted bail after spending four years locked in a prison cell - and enduring three mistrials which depleted the funds available to pay for his defence lawyers.  It seems that his coming fourth trial may see him defended by an appointee from the pool of young lawyers hired by the courts as public defenders.

The courts are now seeing these delays as a perversion of justice - and granting bail because in many cases the time spent in prison on remand may be greater than the actual penalty likely if the accused is found to be guilty.

There is also the distinct likelihood that a seriously delayed trial may play havoc with the memories of both defence and prosecution witnesses.  The death of a crucial witness in a long delayed trial may skew the verdict either way and in any sensational case the witness will be subjected to media stories and public opinion that may alter their viewpoint.

The logical answer is clear.  Either we need more judges sitting in an expanded court system to deal with cases promptly, or we need to revamp the entire justice system to shorten the procedure from charges laid to presentation of the case in court.

Perhaps a reasonable starting point would be a re-evaluation of the need for committal hearings. It seems ludicrous that a case needs to go before a judge to determine if the charges and supporting evidence justify the case proceeding to a higher court.   Surely if what it presented to that higher court has glaring deficiencies it will be thrown out promptly by the person sitting in judgement, and surely a prosecutor sending such a deficient case to trial should face instant dismissal for incompetence.

We have in place a very effective safeguard system for review - and that is called " appeal  " !
 
This whole law pyramid works on the escalating review of ever higher courts examining the wisdom and legal application of lower decisions - and arbitrating the result.  In extreme cases, this can make it's way to the High Court, the apex of the Australian court system.

It seems that the problem is a contrast between what some see as " checks and balances " to ensure that protocol is followed and arcane ritual that has little meaning in this modern age, but is slavishly followed simply because that was the practice that developed in ancient times.   That counsel dress in gowns and wigs in medieval fashion and judges wear scarlet robes seems an intent to endow courts with mystical properties in the eyes of commoners - who appear before them !

Perhaps a time for both courts and the law to be dragged - kicking and screaming - into the twenty-first century !