Towards Swift Justice

Last week, I had the opportunity to observe the British system of criminal justice in operation. One of the judges allowed me to sit with him and observe the proceedings. The trial concerned a robbery that was committed six months ago. The trial was concluded in one day and the convicted offender will be sentenced this week. As I listened, my mind wandered back to the outdated, archaic system we have that allows cases to drift aimlessly through the system for several years so that witnesses could get frustrated, lose interest or be killed.

What is it that allows this efficient pace of criminal justice in London and why can we not implement similar changes to improve our own system? Now that John Jeremie is back, perhaps he can explain why we haven’t abolished preliminary inquiries (a preliminary investigation by a magistrate to determine if there is sufficient evidence to allow the case to be tried by a judge and jury). As Dana Seetahal pointed out two weeks ago, many of our Caribbean neighbours have already done so with little fuss. The endless delay caused by this unnecessary procedural step has made a mockery of the criminal justice system. Current examples include the inquiries into the murder of Vindra Naipaul, the kidnapping of toddler Sada Singh and the airport corruption cases.

Excise the preliminary inquiries that have taken so many years in these matters and by now, the trials would have certainly been completed. The abolition of preliminary inquiries brings immediate results as the workload of the magistracy will be halved at no cost to the government. This change requires legislative change that has not been a priority for the Government. If Mr Jeremie is serious about improving the administration of justice, this is an easy measure that will bring great, much-needed relief to the overburdened magistracy.

Sufficient evidence
Paper committals (whereby magistrates can commit an accused without conducting a full-scale preliminary inquiry if, on the papers, there is sufficient evidence to justify a trial), did not do the trick as magistrates have not made proper use of this procedure. The Criminal Justice Reform Division described the implications of the further policy change of outright abolition as follows: “The abolition of committal tackles delay, and, therefore, enhances the right to swift justice. Meanwhile, the right of individuals not to be sent to trial unnecessarily is protected by the defence right to make an application for dismissal to the Crown Court (our High Court), and by the independence of the Public Prosecution Service (in our case, the DPP), which decides whether there is enough evidence to justify proceeding with a case.

The Government’s policy is to abolish the committal system in the magistrates’ court and replace it with a system whereby cases would be sent to the Crown Court without a committal hearing. A case would be sent when the court is satisfied that the case is suitable to be tried on indictment and is in a state of readiness. The defence would have the right to apply to the Crown Court, either orally or in writing, for the charges to be dismissed. It would be up to the judge to decide whether or not, in the interests of justice, oral evidence should be heard. This policy is broadly consistent with developments in England and Wales, the Republic of Ireland and other common law jurisdictions.” All the courts are outfitted with digital recording devices. The evidence is transcribed if there is an appeal. Evidence is normally taken in the form of a witness statement and cross-examination is, therefore, more focused. Electronic tagging monitored by the police is part of creative sentencing that has discouraged defendants from committing further offences.

Crime pays
The malfunctioning criminal justice system encourages criminals and makes crime pay. If you’re innocent, you’re happy for early vindication; if you’re guilty, the sooner you’re made to realise that crime doesn’t pay the better. The present situation is so bad that witnesses are frustrated, intimidated and fed-up so there is no justice for many victims. Criminals manipulate the system and roam free whilst on bail, often-times committing more offences.
The legislative agenda of the Government has not given crime the priority it deserves. There needs to be a dedicated focus on the urgent need to improve the administration of justice.

In many cases, where legalisation has been passed, it is yet to be implemented (the breathalyser and the DNA lab come to mind) and one cannot help but question the seriousness and bona fides of the Government regarding the burning issue of crime. As the bodies continue to pile up, the stench of inaction by the Manning administration becomes more and more pungent. Time will record that Manning presided over the most murderous and treacherous time in our nation’s history without even acknowledging it as a problem.

By Anand Ramlogan