President of the Barbados Bar Association Rosalind Smith-Millar has joined the chorus of calls for court cases to be dealt with in a timely manner. However, she warned, all cases are different and cannot be held to the same timeline.
Speaking on the recent decision by Justice Cicely-Chase to award murder accused Larry Patrick Agard $95 000 in compensation for the 14-year delay in having his matter heard, Smith-Millar agreed that such a significant delay was unacceptable.
She told Barbados TODAY, the justice system needed to be more efficient.
However, she suggested that all cases were different and therefore to attach a timeline might be difficult.
“I think we need guidelines but I don’t think it could be feasible to have hard and fast rules because every case is going to be different, every investigation is going to have its own path and require its own timeline, but I do think that there must be a greater effort to ensure that accused persons have their trials in a timely manner…
“I don’t want to trot out the usual justice delayed, is justice denied cliché but it is a cliché for a reason,” said the Bar president. “People are entitled under our Constitution to a fair trial in a reasonable time and it may well be time for the AG’s [Attorney General] Office to look at what is reasonable and what resources are required to ensure that matters come to trial in a reasonable time and that all of the state actors, the police, the court system, the DPP’s [Director of Public Prosecutions] Office all do what they have to do diligently and in a reasonable time.
“But, I can’t say that six months would work for every stage of every case because all the cases are different,” Smith-Millar said.
Agard’s award came after his attorney Queen’s Counsel Larry Smith filed a constitutional motion in the High Court charging that his client’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been infringed.
In handing down her judgement, Justice Chase called on state agents to be “actively engaged in cases management” and to “ensure that there is a speedy disposal of criminal matters, from charge to trial and even to appeal of sentence”.
The judge also called for timelines to be implemented and suggested a six-month timeline from the time an accused is charged to the start of the trial.
Previously, another High Court judge, Justice Carlisle Greaves put forward a three-month timeline.
Smith-MIllar noted that although murders and firearm-related matters were especially serious, all cases should be dealt with as speedily as possible.
“Whatever you’re charged with, it has an impact on your life. Yes, some crimes are more serious than others and the penalty that one would pay would reflect the seriousness of the crime.
“So you would go to jail longer for murder than for petty theft, but there has to be a greater effort to deal with these matters expeditiously and certainly it cannot be acceptable to put somebody’s life on hold for 14 years whether they are guilty or not guilty, because obviously they are not guilty until it’s proved in court,” Smith-Millar said.
Meanwhile, Michael Lashley Q.C. called for a complete overhaul of the country’s judicial system.
He said the six-month suggestion was unrealistic given the current backlog in the High Court.
“I think that the criminal justice system needs a complete overhaul. The suggestion of a six-month deadline to do a trial within a system that is already overburdened and lacking in serious technological intervention, will be questionable. However, I believe that all the stakeholders should be involved in the overhaul.
“We need to utilise technology, prepare witness statements by way of dvd. There are some offences that are indictable that can be made summary instead of clogging up the High Court, for example, indecent assault.
“We need a new procedure that will deal with case management thereby, giving deadlines for pretrial disclosures,” Lashley said.
“We need also to increase the jurisdiction of magistrates to deal with matters that are clogging up the High Court. I also believe that cases should be dismissed for want of prosecution where the prosecution delays in the disclosure of pre-trial statements without a reasonable excuse.”
