Trial run

However, we cannot expect this new law to solve all the problems dogging the system. And the impact of the measure may not be seen for some time yet.

The proclamation presumably came upon the advice of Cabinet and that is likely to have been done only with a clear indication from the Judiciary that it is ready to implement the measure.

The law allows a person, upon indictment, to elect to undergo trial by a judge alone. Under that procedure there is no longer a jury.

When the case is completed by the prosecution, the judge has two weeks – at most – to hand down a verdict. If the verdict is a conviction, the judge must give a written statement saying how this position was arrived at. Principles of law and findings of fact must be noted.

One advantage of this approach is that it removes a great deal of the time-consuming measures revolving around a jury from empanelling to the issuing of directions by a judge. Proponents of the law also say the problem of jury tampering is reduced in scope.

However, it must be remembered that the law applies to the indictment stage. This means as long as the time-consuming preliminary enquiry remains in effect, there will still be substantial delay from the time of charge to verdict.

It remains to be seen how many people will opt to choose trial by judge alone. Such people can even choose to go through their entire trial, if they wish, without a lawyer, though it is difficult to see why someone would voluntarily give this up.

If the law is to have real bite, it must be accompanied by a strong, clear public education campaign.

The public deserves to know more about the new procedure. When it comes to a law as fundamental as this, we should not have to depend on downloading the latest draft of the legislation from the Parliament website. The procedure needs to be spelled out comprehensively in language that does not need to be decoded. (Up to yesterday, the Parliament’s website did not reflect the President’s proclamation.) While the law is a welcome development, some may question the use of giving an accused person the option to choose a judge trial when the alternative is so mind-bogglingly convoluted. There remains an obligation on the State and the Judiciary to continue the reform efforts in this regard when it comes to traditional trial by jury. The efficacy of the new evidence procedure rules is one matter which must be addressed by Chief Justice Ivor Archie later this year when another law term opens.

There are also many other reforms which should be instituted.

For example, there is no explanation why the use of video-conferencing facilities to link prisoners to courtrooms has not yet been adopted.

There is also a need for bolstered resources in the Judiciary and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Meanwhile, it remains to be seen how the new law will fare when it is inevitably subject to the barrage of legal challenges that normally accompany such a reform. Lawyers, who are entitled to represent the interests of their clients as best they can, may yet find flaws that the legislature failed to anticipate. Only time will tell.

The Marcia Ayers-Caesar issue has also shone a light on the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, a constitutional body that clearly needs more resources if it is to fit a more modern conception of the Judiciary.

The new law is effectively a trial run for the concept of trial without jury in this country. Depending on how it works it could be a precursor of even more profound change.

But while it is a step forward and Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi should be congratulated, it is just one piece of the puzzle.