Saga of the traffic light (Judicial monitoring — Part Two)

The first ground of defence was rejected out of hand by the magistrate. The second ground rested on the credibility of my own observation of the functioning of the light on that particular day and my observation of it over time. The magistrate indicated that I had to prove the traffic lights were malfunctioning on that day.

There was no way I could prove this as I could not provide evidence from the traffic management authority to that effect. Apparently the magistrate would not take my word either for the malfunctioning or for the absence of traffic.

In the circumstances I informed my attorney that I would change my plea from not guilty to guilty with an explanation in the hope that the matter would have been concluded on that day — the third hearing. To my consternation the magistrate refused to accept a guilty plea. He then called for closing arguments by both prosecution and defence.

This whole exercise for determining a minor traffic offence took over two and a half hours. When we were all expecting a decision by the magistrate, lo and behold he said that he reserved judgment in the matter.

He was not satisfied with the manner in which the legal issues were addressed by the prosecution and defence. He made reference to a decision in a similar case in another jurisdiction and asked the prosecution and defence to research the case and come prepared to make legal submissions at an adjourned hearing. Thus this minor matter was adjourned for a fourth time.

When the matter came up for the fourth time I could not attend due to illness and asked my attorney to request an adjournment. This minor matter then was postponed for a fifth time. On this occasion the magistrate again vented his dissatisfaction with the legal submissions made on both sides as he complained that the issues were still not dealt with.

He apparently concluded that I was guilty of the offence and requested my attorney to make submissions relating to mitigation. My attorney informed him that I held a driving licence for over forty years and was never charged with an offence, that I was a responsible citizen and that credibility should be placed on my statement regarding the malfunctioning of the traffic light. This pleading made no im-pression on the magistrate. He confirmed a guilty verdict and in-creased the fine from $200 to $250.

I am of the opinion that the procedure employed by the magistrate was flawed in many ways. Firstly, the case should have been dismissed on the second hearing due to the non-appearance of the complainant policeman for the second time, and the inability of the prosecutor to provide an explanation for his absence. In any event the matter should have been concluded on the third hearing with my offer of a guilty plea.

After this plea was rejected, at this very hearing he requested closing submissions from both prosecution and defence. After analysing the evidence provided and determining issues of fact he was then obliged to apply the law as he knew it to the case before him and make a decision regardless of the legal competence of prosecutor and defence attorney.

This matter should therefore have taken no more than three hearings. The fact that he did not do so in my view reflects on his competence.

But this case also has a bearing on the efficiency of the judicial system. The traffic court was deemed to be the most overloaded in terms of cases scheduled. Yet this minor matter which should not have gone beyond two or three hearings took five for conclusion.

There was the additional time consumed and financial costs incurred not only by myself but by the Court and the police And this situation repeats itself thousands of times in the judicial system resulting in a great waste of resources, unconscionable delays and a high level of frustration. It is no wonder that the average citizen has little confidence in the judicial system.

It has never been said that justice is not a cloistered virtue and should be subjected to the respectful scrutiny of ordinary citizens. Such citizens do of course harbour their own sense of justice and may draw conclusions based on this.

Justice must therefore be seen to be fair and evenhanded in order to gain acceptability by the general population. In order to achieve this end, there ought to be procedures for ongoing internal self-examination and self regulation of the judicial process and administration of justice as well as external oversight.

In other words there should be instituted systems of accountability and mechanisms of oversight.

In my view these are necessary in a democracy and the administration of justice cannot be exempt from this principle. And this has to do with proper procedures and criteria for the selection of personnel and the assignment of responsibility for the efficiency of the system and of decision-making and for facilitating rationality, consistency, adherence to established rules, standards and precedents.