Justice meted out unevenly in court

I refer to the letter Players Involved In Court Management (August 23) by Kevin Mahoney, director general, Courts of Justice Division. While I thank Mr Mahoney for his reply, I would like to remind him that he initially refused to reply on The Times and replied to me directly through an e-mail instead.

Mr Mahoney knows well that it will not be ethical for me to publish such information as the magistrate’s name and whether the case was criminal or civil. Therefore, I look forward to having Mr Mahoney investigate my case and replying accordingly.

My question remains: Why was I not advised on my arrival (9 a.m.) that the case was put off? The third party had supplied a certificate to the court in advance and it was left to the competence of the court to inform me accordingly, at least on my arrival.

The thrust of my letter is that a person who is able to pay for a lawyer will have the court case heard in the beginning of the sitting because the order in which cases are called is not the one printed on the notice board. Do you think this is fair and just? I find it strange that Mr Mahoney is in the dark about such procedures. I also noticed that things concerning the courts, with regard to the endless waiting time, are always hushed up.

This issue was discussed during a recent TV morning programme when telephone lines were opened for viewers. One caller shared her experience of how she had been going to court for 25 years because of a marriage separation. This makes a married couple think twice before asking for a separation!