CJ gets tough with delinquent magistrates

In an attempt to save the Judiciary from another blot on the administration of justice and the recurring scandal of delinquent magistrates not giving written reasons for their decisions in matters of appeal, Chief Justice Sat Sharma said yesterday that he has asked the Judicial and Legal Service Commission to insist that Magistrates who are eligible for promotion not be so considered unless and until they have concluded their part-heard matters and given their reasons.

The CJ has also insisted that all magisterial matters  with or without the magistrate’s reasons and or the notes of evidence, be listed for hearing in an attempt to avoid any further miscarriage of justice. CJ Sharma made the point while dealing with the appeal of Joan Ajim, who was sentenced to three years and had filed her appeal since 1988. Her appeal came up for hearing only yesterday. He also noted that a number of matters before the Court “this morning” dated back to the  late 1980’s and early 1990s. He acknowledged that the policy was that these appeals only be listed when notes of evidence and or reasons were available, hence the reason why these matters were not listed before. 

Some magistrates, he said, were largely responsible because they left the magistracy without giving their reasons in appeal matters. Another reason was the outdated note-taking system. About the latter, the CJ said: “When that will end, I do not know.” The CJ went on to say that these long delays have  aggravated the situation, and have made matters worse, but in a move to deal with that situation he said: “We decided that all matters should be listed whether they had reasons or not, because what we found is that people have already served their sentences in the prison and yet their appeals had not come up for hearing because of the system. “That is to say, listing matters only when the reasons were available and when the notes were forthcoming... We decided to go back and that is why we now have matters listed from 1988 in which  there are still no reasons, and in some cases no notes of evidence. Yet, we have decided to list them and to do the best we can to avoid any further miscarriage of justice.”

He said they owe litigants and the public an explanation as to why this had happened, but the explanation is not an acceptable one. “What has been happening and what I have alluded to, constitute a blot on the administration of justice.” He noted the sequel to this story was that those who had been kept in prison longer than was necessary were now suing the State and recovering substantial damages — monies that could have been used to buy equipment, spruce up and modernised the note-taking system. Although Ajim’s conviction was upheld, the CJ said:” We think in all the circumstances of this case, we will uphold the conviction as we are obliged to do, but the only way we can redress what we conceived to be a travesty of justice is to (vary the sentence), impose a fine of $1,000 and to give her a month in which to pay.”