Thorne urges family law reform amid scepticism of judge-only trials

Debate in Parliament on judge-only trial legislation in the government’s bid to cut trial delays took a detour as Opposition Leader Ralph Thorne briefly put aside his scepticism of the Bill to urge reform of family law.

Thorne suggested the government give family law jurisdiction the same attention it gives to the criminal justice system.

“While we tend to be preoccupied with the criminal law and the speed of criminal cases, I still want to remind this chamber and this country that the most pervasive branch of litigation is family legislation,” he said.

Thorne pointed out the significant suffering experienced by many families due to unresolved disputes and inadequate support systems.

“A lot of people still suffer within the family law jurisdiction,” he said. “A lot of children are not supported. A lot of disputes still exist between husbands and wives, [and] between ex-married persons. The question of maintenance, the question of custody, the question of unresolved property, that is more pervasive than criminal law.”

The opposition leader urged the government to balance its focus and resources between criminal law and family law, stressing the need for reforms in both areas.

He said: “I want to say to the government that when we are preoccupying ourselves with criminal law and the administration of criminal law and the justice system, please do not forget family law as an area of some urgency. As I said, a lot of people suffer because sometimes the family court is not moving as quickly as it should.”

Thorne described the heavy caseloads previously faced by judges in the family court, revealing that some presided over up to 30 cases each Friday.

Despite the addition of more judges, he acknowledged that the pace of family court proceedings remains a concern.

“While we are legitimately concerned with speed in the criminal court, let us not leave behind the urgency of the family court. The family matters are quite pervasive within the administration of justice,” he noted.

Calling Attorney General Dale Marshall’s attention to the matter, he said: “On the question of speed, I would urge the Honourable Attorney General to pay equal attention to both the criminal division and the family division as requiring some equal attention.”

Marshall told the House: “The legislation we’ve brought is intended to help the system be more efficient.”

He highlighted the advantages of judge-only trials arguing that they are typically faster and less expensive, usually leveraging the expertise of judges and therefore ensuring sounder decisions, particularly in more complex cases.

“Therefore, because judges are legal experts and have a firm understanding of the law in circumstances where the jury has none, you can get a sounder decision coming from a judge alone in those circumstances,” he said.

Marshall also debated the impact of bias in some cases, emphasising that jurors may be influenced by irrelevant factors such as appearance or personal connections, potentially swaying their judgment.

“It is possible for judges to have that kind of attitude too but they are better able to put those things aside and to make a dispassionate decision on whether something meets the burden of proof that is required,” he added.

Adopting a judge-only trial, like other Commonwealth Caribbean nations, according to the attorney general,  could also assist in alleviating backlog issues within the judicial system, potentially expediting the resolution of cases.

But returning to scepticism regarding the practicality and fairness of judge-only trials, the opposition leader declared: “I am not optimistic that a majority of lawyers will go for judge-alone trials.”

“It is very ambitious, but based on my professional experience, I am not optimistic that in the majority of cases it will come to fruition,” he said.

Expressing concerns about potential biases within the judiciary, Thorne cautioned against depriving defendants of their right to a trial by their peers.

“I do not bring any secrets out of the criminal Bar but over the years, defence counsels have perceived judges as having an establishmentarian bias. The prosecutor and the judge have always been perceived to work more closely than defence counsels,” he added.

The opposition leader further raised logistical challenges posed by the Bill, particularly in cases involving multiple defendants with differing preferences for trial formats.

“I want to draw the attorney general’s attention to Section 3 of this amendment,” Thorne noted. “It states, the court shall not make an order for a trial by a judge sitting alone unless it is satisfied that in the case of a joint trial, all other accused persons have elected to be tried by a judge alone.”

Noting that a divide in the desired trial presents a potentially problematic circumstance which may further deprive an accused of his/her right, he urged the attorney general to address these concerns to ensure a fair and equitable judicial process. (SM)