A dent at last?

The Opposition quickly pounced on the joint press conference held by Minister of National Security Edmund Dillon and Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi as an example of public relations.

That may well have been so, but it cannot be denied that the measures discussed at the press conference have the potential to effect meaningful changes in the criminal justice system. The burning question, however, is whether they will be enough to make a true dent in crime.

We welcome the announcement that a DNA custodian has been appointed to man the long-delayed DNA databank. DNA legislation was passed in Parliament long ago, but key aspects of the overall system were never put in place before the assent of the law.

This has been a startling example of cosmetic law-making. If we want to talk public relations, we need to grapple with Parliament’s insistence on passing laws without all the necessary supporting benchmarks being in place. What use is our DNA law if the system of searches envisioned by the drafters does not work? Without this system, our law enforcement officers continue to face a needless hurdle in their inquiries, a hurdle easily surmountable through the use of long-available technology.

It was also announced that the Government hopes to move forward with the long-promised electronic monitoring system which will reduce pressure on prisons and the court.

Legislation for the elimination of preliminary inquiries is also planned, a measure which will result in a profound change in the length of time required for the court system to handle indictable or serious offences. Trial without jury also poses the potential to reduce backlog. However, the system will face the significant hurdle of mistrust in the police.

Other measures announced included: legal aid reform; the coming on stream of new criminal procedure rules in April; and a new Public Defenders Department.

These are all well and good, but their impact is far from certain.

For example, the Public Defenders Department sounds good on paper. In theory it will mean that prisoners brought to the courts will not be sent back without matters being heard in any meaningful way. Instead, there will sanctions applied by the Judiciary for failure by counsel to represent their clients.

But in practice how will this system differ from what currently exists? Lawyers frequently hold for colleagues when matters are called. Also, some lawyers will be reluctant to take on too much without adequate preparation.

The stage of the case will be relevant.

While the justice system is one side of the equation, it also remains true that we need to modernize the police service. The modes of surveillance and the usage of surveillance information can be improved, according to some.

Do law enforcement officers have the tools to pursue targets? It’s makes no sense being lofty and announcing reforms when basic equipment stands in disrepair.

We often talk about radar systems. Are the current systems operational? Are they used in detection? It also must not be forgotten that all new measures will require substantial training and it is important for the State to keep this in mind. Just as DNA legislation effectively floundered awaiting staff to man records, so to can many of the new measures be railroaded by poor human resource planning. So announcements and press conferences are good. But will any of it make a difference in one year’s time? B