Few would disagree that, generally speaking, the judicial system is not delivering swift and sure justice to those who expect the courts to operate efficiently. The system is largely self–regulating but it is wrong to assume that it is a single entity. Indeed, the administration of justice depends on the cooperation of various people including victims of crime, witnesses, the police, lawyers and court experts, to mention just a few.
The Constitutional Court recently lambasted Malta for failing to successfully address the problem of excessive court delays. It noted that the country was lacking in its duty to provide the judicial system with the necessary resources to ensure speed and efficiency.
This is by no means a new problem. A good 160 years ago, Charles Dickens, in Bleak House, described the interminable court case known as Jarndyce V Jarndyce. “The scarecrow of a lawsuit,” Dickens wrote, in course of time became so complicated that no man alive knows what it means. Times, have, of course, changed but the victims of court delays are justified in expressing frustration at the slow moving wheels of the judicial system.
The need for reform has never been more urgent. Some form of body needs to be entrusted with a thorough reform of our courts, in practice not just on paper. Such a reform is needed not simply because speed and efficiency are a must, especially when doing justice, but because we need an improved judicial system for all, delivering its overriding purpose to cut crime and protect human rights.
The perception of the public that the judicial system is complex and remote and that it is not responsive enough to their needs is a signal that action needs to be taken urgently to strengthen trust in the courts. An action plan to deliver the much-desired changes must be based on the definition of the shared objectives of all stakeholders in the system.
The shared objectives of an efficient judicial system should ideally be to reduce crime and reoffending, to punish offenders, to protect the public, to provide victims with reparation, to improve public confidence (especially that of victims and witnesses) and to ensure that the system is fair and just.
In order to ensure such a reform would be successful, a cross-functional implementation team should be set up to avoid the silo mentality syndrome where one group of stakeholders try to protect their turf at all costs – costs that are often paid for by the public. This has been evident even after this government ordered a review of the system.
The allocation of more resources will, of course, be inevitable. Those who are familiar with how modern businesses function will not be surprised at the way that the judicial system fails terribly to take advantage of all the benefits that technology can bring. The amount of paperwork and the delays that this causes is unacceptable as it means endless hours wasted repeatedly filling in forms and making the necessary preparations.
In a world where one can plan and book a round-the-world holiday via internet from the comfort of one’s home or conduct complex financial operations with the click of a button, the way the judicial system operates appears hopelessly antiquated.
The Constitutional Court has blamed the State for failing to provide resources to remedy the delays. Yet, lack of resources are just one aspect of this endemic problem. A mindset that resists change is possibly a more crippling cause of judicial inefficiency.