Not a simple case

According to a statement issued by the Judiciary, consensus was reached between these key stakeholders to have all 53 matters restarted afresh. Acting Chief Magistrate Maria Busby- Earle Caddle will preside over all indictable cases, while all summary matters will be taken over by an assigned magistrate at the Port of Spain Magistrates’ Court.

This decision restores some degree of certainty. However, it does not address lingering questions moving forward.

In the first place, it has been reported that not all the attorneys involved in the 53 matters have been consulted. It may have been impossible to see to this, but we note there are definite implications for these professionals and, most importantly, the clients they represent.

Now that it has been decided the cases will start afresh, who will pay for the additional expense that will be incurred in legal fees? Will the accused be granted some form of supplementary legal aid by the State? While the Judiciary has come to a clear decision on the way forward, the details of how that decision is to be implemented are likely to trigger further squabbling and possibly legal action.

One senior counsel has already expressed the view that the right to protection by the law has possibly been infringed by the addition of further delay through no fault of the accused.

It also remains to be seen how this caseload is to be distributed among the already overburdened magistrates in Port of Spain. Will the Judicial and Legal Service Commission move to appoint more magistrates? Should a special official be designated to resolve the issues pertaining to these cases? But while there are clearly issues still to be ironed out, none of them are insurmountable. Nor do they detract from the fact that the justice system in this country is already in a crisis, bogged down by delay, convoluted procedures and filibustering by advocates who needlessly prolong cases.

In fact, the decision on Wednesday should be the start of an even deeper collaboration between stakeholders going forward. That collaboration should focus on the extent to which some of the main players in the system contribute to delay.

It should also bring about recommendations in relation to the way judges and magistrates are appointed and draw up an actionable plan to improve the criminal justice system. All involved should take advantage of this golden opportunity for reform.

Meanwhile, it remains unclear what will be the fate of Ayers-Caesar as well as the inmates affected by these developments.

It is also ironic that these cases will start over while the State moves to abolish preliminary inquiries.

These inquires have, for decades, been identified as the source of needless delay within the overall system of justice.

They see witnesses made vulnerable through testimony and the taking of evidence in court.

While the inquiry seems to hark back to the Greek archon basileus, the benefits of this added check in the system have long been outweighed by the drawbacks.

The idea is that abuse of process would be prevented by having a magistrate determine if there is a case to answer. But in practice, the inquiries are needlessly long. And they generate more risks. Let us hope the consultations continue and that they iron out these issues as well.