Who is popular today?

“I assure you of my commitment to working together in the years ahead to ensure that trust and confidence in the judiciary and the profession are enhanced.”
Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh, address at Law Association award ceremony, November 14.
Chief Justice Boodoosingh has stated his early priorities are: the re-opening and maximum use of court buildings; to lead a more efficient, high-performing judiciary so that the public receives value for money invested; and committing to being a collaborative chief justice, to listen and consult on important matters.
Two of his priorities are aimed at strengthening the judiciary, and all related institutions and agencies should give their fullest co-operation towards these objectives.
However, it is to the second priority that the public anxiously looks forward. Too many affected citizens have had to travel up and down to attend postponed trials; hungry jurors get tired coming and going; while the state is not ready, even disobeying court orders; the police are repeatedly absent, thus forcing unjust dismissals; lawyers are “not ready” because of packed schedules, and even after case-management hearings, etc.
We can’t blame citizens when they sometimes feel it is lawyers who are running the courts.
Trial delays are now close to a human-rights nightmare, with long-term consequences, including the fate of Remand Yard inmates. Cases involving accused sitting MPs should be finalised.
Chief Justice Boodoosingh declared: “Timelines for hearing and the determination of cases must be reduced and standards have to be firmly adopted. Citizens have the right to expect the hearing of their cases and delivery of decisions within a reasonable time.”
The apparent zig-zag delivery of sentencing without justification should have been cured by the judiciary’s excellent 2010 Sentencing Handbook, authored by Justice of Appeal Peter Jamadar and Justice Mark Mohammed, with a five-member sub-committee which included Justice Boodoosingh.
Then there is the controversial matter of granting senior counsel rank such that the reputations of those who really deserve it get sullied by those who don’t deserve it. Not only are the qualifications in great doubt, but the award, which carries great expense for citizens, is too politically driven.
Whatever influence the Chief Justice has in this regard, he should use it to bring about a more merit-driven, independent process. Remove this blemish from the legal profession, which is a place where, quite often, rhetoric obscures substance.
[caption id="attachment_1188163" align="aligncenter" width="433"] -[/caption]
Beneath the majestic aura of the court, these ground-level happenings trouble citizens, and so as Chief Justice Boodoosingh has now bravely reset the switch, as polite and measured as his speech was, it brought encouragement to the population. With quiet efficiency and determination, he can do it.
On October 26, this column celebrated the CJ’s judicial qualities: “Apart from his extensive professional training, law-school service and outstanding work at the High and Appeal Courts, he also exemplified the ‘golden values’ of hard work, integrity and professional humility.”
However, as he may well know, given the conservative profession it is, he may have to mash a few legal toes in getting his three priorities effectively implemented.
He is also chairman of the Judicial and Legal Services Commission. If he shows that the judiciary and the courts are really for justice, then his pledge to enhance “trust and confidence in the judiciary and profession” will be fulfilled.
But these are not new problems. Take Chief Justice Michael de la Bastide’s 1999-2000 annual report. Pressed by very lengthy trial delays, he appointed a 14-member Backlog Reduction Committee, including five judges, to “eradicate the backlog of civil matters, to develop and implement a system to reviewing outstanding matters…with a view to having them disposed of in a timely, effective and fair manner.” Did the committee’s report help?
In fact, when you read such reports for the last 30 years, you will find the same problems of extensive trial delays, judicial administration and performance repeated year after year.
These problems will not be solved by imposing an expensive chancellor on the judiciary. Just changing faces, with inevitable duplication, is not necessary. Give the current judiciary the resources to do its work properly.
I too was on a committee, established by Patrick Manning’s cabinet to reduce the backlog in the magistrates’ courts, chaired by Sir Ellis Clarke and including Justice Guya Persaud, Police Commissioner Jules Bernard, the principal of Sir Hugh Wooding Law School and Frank Mouttet, Chamber of Commerce president. Did the committee’s report help?
Again, take the 1992 cabinet-appointed team “to advise on systems to reduce existing delays in the administration of justice.” Chaired by attorney Dennis Gurley, with seven members, the committee, after extensive consultations and research, produced 22 recommendations, all designed to reduce trial backlogs and improve judicial efficiency. Did the committee’s report help?
Again, I say God speed, CJ, the public is behind you.
 
The post Mr CJ, build trust in judiciary appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.