Somehow, a Jamaica Bar Association (JBA) letter to the Chief Justice complaining of delays in delivery of judgments found itself in the Gleaner.

On May 15 (“End delays from the Bench! Bar Association calls on judges to speedily hand down judgments”), it was quoted extensively.  Some might have formed the impression Jamaica’s justice system’s problems were the fault of these delinquent Judges.

JAMBAR’s letter included: “We’re of the view these many outstanding judgments underscore the problem of chronic delays in the timely delivery of justice within the Supreme Court………

But, if you ploughed through the entire report, you’d notice only sixty-two delinquent judgments were listed over ten years (average: 6 per year). Now, all judgments should be delivered promptly but a proper context ought to be provided so readers aren’t misled into believing THIS is the problem.

In 1994, then Attorney-at-law David Batts with Stacy Mitchell (now Fraser), presented an excellent paper: “Delays in the Justice System Civil Jurisdiction”.   At that time, Mr. Batts (now Hon. Mr. Justice Batts) noted the absence of available statistics regarding pending Supreme Court cases but was able to record that, in the Appeal Court (1990), 352 cases were filed; 90 disposed of; and 245 of 430 settled.

In the absence of statistical assistance, the Batts/Mitchell project team conducted a study and concluded, in 1994:

The median or 50th percentile age from placement on the Cause List to expected disposition date… 16 months.  The 75th percentile was 21.6 months”.

That 1994 study went on:

More alarming is  the age of the pending caseload from the time the case is filed……..The 50th percentile time from filing to expected disposition is 33.5 months while the 75th percentile is 57.5 months

In 1994, Mr Batts, then a member of JBA, gave as reasons for Supreme Court delays:

  • The existing backlog: itself caused by past slow disposal of cases. New cases moved to the back of the line;
  • Civil procedure system: operated hostile to efficiency (few settlements or agreement of certain issues);
  • Administrative difficulties (especially the Registry’s operation): “Files cannot be located. It takes forever to obtain dates. Information is difficult to access. Letters are either not answered or responses are late in coming.  Formal Orders and judgments in default take months to be executed
  • Attitude of Counsel: Many at the civil Bar don’t seem to acknowledge their roles as Officers of the Court with a vested interest in getting things done. Why spend three days in court when an adjournment means one can produce more lucrative work in Chambers? “….many of us don’t give matters the consideration they require before entering that court room. Documents aren’t agreed, pre-trial discovery not utilised sufficiently; witnesses aren’t prepared…and the court isn’t given the type of assistance which could lead to a smoother flow of cases.”
  • Judges: If both parties to a civil matter agree to adjourn there may be little a Judge can do “however a judicial attitude can make a world of difference. One need only cite the rather extreme example of a certain Judge at the Revenue Court”

One Monday morning, as I was leaving to conduct a Revenue Court trial, I was summoned by telephone to an emergency Appeal Court hearing. I asked Junior Counsel in the chambers to go to the Revenue Court; explain my urgent dilemma; and ask for a postponement until I could attend.

Said “extreme example” (long ago dearly departed) informed Junior Counsel:

  • all parties were present;
  • he was alleged to be a lawyer

so trial would begin.  By the time I arrived the matter had proceeded almost to conclusion and poor Junior Counsel was completely stressed out facing some of the Jamaica’s most senior Advocates.

Twenty years later, with new Civil Procedure Rules, Case Management and “mandatory” mediation, the situation is worse.  Jamaica’s 2013 Economic and Social Survey (ESS) remains devoid of Supreme Court civil case statistics. The Appeal Court had 1,388 appeals carried forward from the previous year (738 Supreme Court Civil); 253 new appeals filed (118 SCCA); and only 169 appeals (approximately 10%) disposed of. At the end of the year, 1,472 appeals remained pending. The decline in new appeals from 1990 (352) to 2015 (253) is itself a product of the snail’s pace at which Supreme Court trials are concluded.

My usually reliable sources estimate many thousand Supreme Court civil cases were carried forward in each of the past five years and between 7,000-8,000 new cases filed in the civil division each year, including over 3,000 matrimonial matters.

Why the unending, burgeoning backlog? Because 62 judgments were egregiously delayed over the past ten years? Of course not.  Supreme Court Judges are as much victims of the system as we. The reasons for the delays set out by Mr. Batts in 1994 compounded by 20 more years of political neglect and professional arrogance by lawyers, are the reasons today.

  1. About 30 Supreme Court Judges are expected to sit all day, every day (criminal AND civil) hearing a list of about 5 matters per day in Chambers; 5 per week in Open Court. Three weeks in civil court can be immediately followed by 3 weeks on circuit. There’s no system for a regular week off to write Judgments.
  2. Conditions of work are archaic, shambolic, embarrassing and counter-productive. Over 300 Law School graduates annually but no Judge has a rotating staff of at least three young lawyers as Judicial Clerks to assist with research and judgment writing. Support staff and services are woefully inadequate and outdated. One “secretary” will type for 5 judges but doesn’t assist with appointments or anything else. Most Judges don’t have dedicated registry clerks to attend to their diaries and fixtures.  Registry staff is generally underpaid, de-motivated and inadequately trained.  Clerks have duties to judges in court AND filing/office duties elsewhere. It’s an administrative morass and a Judge, who should have 3 judicial clerks, a dedicated registry clerk and secretary, is left to fend for him/herself AND lambasted when judgments are late;
  3. The production of verbatim trial transcripts is a joke despite the presence of alleged verbatim recorders with computerized equipment. Recently, a complex libel trial was conducted 5 years after suit was filed. After trial, it took one year+ to produce notes of evidence for the Judge’s consideration. Judgment was delivered promptly and appealed. The same Supreme Court that delivered notes to the Judge was unable to produce the same notes of evidence for the appeal so lawyers had to produce/deliver the notes or wait ad infinitum for the appeal to be heard. The appeal was heard 3 years after the trial. WTH?
  4. Updated Law reports are as rare as Phalaenopsis blooms; reporting of local judgments haphazard at best; Judges’ security non-existent; and their woefully inadequate remuneration, terrible pension arrangements and inadequate health plans, still controlled by the Ministry of Justice, are insults.
  5. The infrastructure is pathetic. Criminal and civil courts are housed side-by-side.  Prisoners are escorted by police through civil law litigants waiting for their cases to be heard. The recently refurbished old NCB building (intended to separate criminal/civil courts), is a perfect example of how to waste space.  The problem remains.

ESS 2013 refers to “Justice Sector Reform” which promised “a review of the court-based automatic mediation process and the preparation of a report which included recommendations for the expansion and improvement of automatic mediation…

DWL! Three years later, WHERE IS IT?  Gathering dust on somebody’s desk? Meanwhile, parties send representatives to mediation who are unable to take final decisions or who only intend to go through the motions. There’s no sanction. If you turn up with an attitude so anti-mediation you succeed in creating another year’s delay, no biggie.  Mediators, claiming “confidentiality” won’t expose these system manipulators in court. You see, doctors differ and patients die but lawyers differ and both get rich.

JBA, stop crying about a few outstanding judgments; agitate for REAL systemic improvement beginning with a truly independent judiciary with its own budget administered by the Chief Justice; proper remuneration, staffing and working conditions for judges; judicial specialization and proper case management procedures; time-off to write judgments; and greater due diligence in making appointments.  Until these fundamental changes are made at the problem’s root, it’s a miracle that 62 number isn’t 620!

Peace and Love


Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: