Attorneys welcome Magistrates’ Court reforms

At least two attorneys have welcomed proposed changes to the Magistrates’ Court system, describing them as a step towards reducing the disruption caused when criminal cases have to restart because a magistrate is unable to complete a trial.

The Magistrates’ Court Amendment Bill, passed in Parliament this week, seeks to facilitate virtual hearings and address difficulties that arise when magistrates are transferred, elevated or otherwise unable to finish matters they have started.

Senior Counsel Angella Mitchell-Gittens said restarting a trial can be frustrating and costly for all parties involved, including complainants, witnesses, accused persons and attorneys.

“From the perspective of the complainant, the matter has started, it seems as if it’s going to be over, and then you have to come back and give evidence again. Witnesses have to come back and give evidence again and, from the point of view of the accused, it can be seen to be an abuse of process where a judicial officer leaves after having heard a substantial amount of the case, and then you have to go back over it again,” she told Barbados TODAY.

Mitchell-Gittens said repeated trials also raise concerns about an accused person’s right to have a matter heard within a reasonable time.

She noted that additional costs are often absorbed by attorneys rather than clients.

“If you charge someone to do a matter and then, through no fault of the client, a magistrate is unable to continue the matter, it would be unreasonable for me to go to the person and say, ‘Well, you know, you have to pay all over again.’”

The senior counsel added that repeated hearings can also affect witness testimony.

“Part of the craft of litigation is you’re questioning the witness to get certain answers on the stand, and the more they have to do over a trial, then they become better practised. So it’s a no-win situation all around.”

Mitchell-Gittens recalled one matter that had to restart three times after magistrates left the jurisdiction for various reasons. 

She welcomed a provision allowing the Chief Justice to appoint a former magistrate to return and complete unfinished cases.

“The fact that the Chief Justice can basically have the person revert to their magisterial position to finish matters, I think, is an excellent amendment, especially in cases where someone might have gone on to a different government department [or] they might have been elevated, and just to have them return and finish the matters. I think that is excellent,” she said.

She also supported comments by Minister of Legal Affairs Michael Lashley on the possibility of giving magistrates island-wide jurisdiction, saying such a move could prevent cases from restarting when magistrates are transferred between districts.

“A magistrate may have been in Holetown and you start a matter there. They get transferred to Oistins and you have your full docket at Oistins. So the magistrate at Holetown may have to restart the matter. [If you give] all magistrates island-wide jurisdiction, wherever you sit, you’d be able to just complete the matter, regardless of jurisdiction,” she said.

While she acknowledged that the legislation would not eliminate all situations in which a trial must restart, Mitchell-Gittens described it as progress.

Defence attorney Sade Harris also welcomed the amendments, saying she had experienced cases in which trials were close to completion when a magistrate became unavailable, forcing proceedings to restart.

She noted that the situation can be particularly frustrating and mentally taxing for accused persons who maintain their innocence.

“The client will more often than not have to sit through hearing the accusation all over again without being able to put their defence,” she said, while pointing to practical difficulties that can arise when witnesses must be recalled, particularly after lengthy delays.

Harris suggested the reforms be accompanied by additional resources for the courts, including court reporters or stenographers to maintain detailed records of proceedings and assist magistrates who take over matters already in progress.

“I believe that if it is a case where a new magistrate is coming in, that magistrate should … [have] full access to a thorough or a very detailed record of what transpired in the matter prior to them being appointed to the bench.”

Harris also supported the use of electronic hearings in appropriate matters, particularly for people on bail who can spend hours waiting in court for brief appearances.

She noted that some defendants spend much of the day at court only for their matters to be adjourned within minutes.

The attorney believes remote hearings could reduce those delays, making the process more convenient for clients and attorneys while improving the efficiency of the courts.

“It will allow for persons who are on bail to join us via Zoom and get their next court date. It would allow for us, the attorneys who might be in another court and just want to see if the file is ready or not, or the matter is going to be adjourned, for us to just log on from wherever location we are and address the matters,” Harris added.

(JB)