It is a very old adage, but it is certainly true ! Justice delayed - is justice denied ! When we are accused of a crime we have an expectation that we will be promptly put before a judge or a Magistrate to have the matter settled. In reality, we may spend years sitting in a prison cell on remand, waiting our turn to get a place on a court docket, or at best being granted bail and allowed to live at home in the limbo between "prisoner "and "freedom ".
Those on bail are usually required to regularly attend a police station and "sign the book " to prove that they have not " escaped". Even in low level cases they are publicly shamed and their case may get regular media attention. Children of the accused share this shame.
In New South Wales the delay between charge and trial is ever lengthening. At the start of July there were 3042 criminal trials awaiting a hearing and 1195 sentencing matters to be decided. This compares with 2010 when the numbers were 977 and 722 in comparison.
Clearly, we do not have enough judges nor available courts to diminish the backlog. Since last year just five new judges have been appointed and this is part of a $ 59 million funding package. We are building new prisons and extending the bed numbers, but the availability of judges to clear cases is facing a growing backlog.
One of the problems is the propensity of the accused to enter a not guilty plea when charged and wait hopefully for the forensic case to fall apart. If that fails to happen, the accused will most likely change to a guilty plea on the eve of the trial to gain concessions for avoiding trial, but completely wrecking the courts trial docket procedure.Both prosecution and defence need adequate notice to go to trial. Either may call for an adjournment if a case is brought forward.
It seems that when the government needs more judges it treats the matter like any other form of employment - and advertises that is has vacancies. Obviously these jobs are only open to those from a legal background and many in the legal profession face a dilemma. Tenure of office is attractive for some and judges salary is considered generous, but it pales into significance when compared what the top silks earn for a day in court. In some legal circles, elevation to the bench is seen as the graceful exit from an unsuccessful legal career.
It is very much a ranking comparison. When an admired legal entity is elevated to sit as a judge on a higher court the move attracts plaudits. Unfortunately, judges bring with them personal likes and dislikes and as a result some are constantly challenged on appeal. We have in the past had a litany of judges with very strange verdicts which fall way outside normal parameters. In fact, one judge sat and heard cases for years without ever delivering an actual finding.
Appointing new judges is a step into the unknown. We might be wise to consider new judges on a short tenure. The whole law/courts/prison system needs revision if we are to break the cycle of repeat offenders recycling without meaningful rehabilitation. At present, once a judge attains tenure it is virtually for life. We need new legal minds that "think outside the nine dots " to explore the divide between crime and punishment.
What is absolutely clear - is that the present regime is not delivering what the government needs and what it is promising to achieve !
No comments:
Post a Comment