The manner in which committal proceedings are conducted is often blamed for the long time it takes for a case to go before a trial by jury.
In the meantime, the accused is left in suspended animation, usually, with her or his personal liberty curtailed, if not altogether denied, and victims and their families unable to have closure.
Committal proceedings – the stage when a magistrate compiles the evidence after a person is arraigned in connection with serious criminal cases – have, by law, to be concluded within a month, though they can be extended to three if the attorney general feels more evidence is required before deciding whether to issue a bill of indictment. This is the root cause of the delays.
The situation started getting out of hand in the mid-1970s when the number of cases kept rising but the Magistrates Court’s complement was rather small. Until the early 1970s, magistrates seemed to cope, but not the attorney general and, gradually, it became the practice to refer the case back to the presiding magistrate, even if to collect some inconsequential evidence, thus winning time to go through the growing workload.
The time for the conclusion of the magisterial inquiry started slowly being extended in the hope that all the evidence would be compiled, and so avoid referrals, but it did not work out that way. A genuine attempt to fix the problem gave many the impression that time is not of the essence, when, of course, it is, in criminal proceedings more than in civil cases.
The matter has now been raised by the justice shadow minister who deems reforming the system as opportune, arguing it could shorten certain criminal procedures by long months.
Statistics available on the courts’ website show there were 2,185 pending commital proceedings before the Magistrates Court in July. Magistrates were also handling 1,405 inquiries. So any action that can be taken to ease this backlog and speed up proceedings would be welcome. However, a prudent approach must be adopted.
One cannot overlook the so-called discovery aspect in committal proceedings, which allows the accused to know well in advance what the evidence against him consists of, and so prepare the defence accordingly.
Immediately dropping the compilation stage altogether would probably be counterproductive and, therefore, other alternatives should be considered, because there could be too much at risk in terms of the administration of justice.
Those jurisdictions, like the UK, that removed the committal stage altogether first went through a long period during which structures and institutions were strengthened and independent regulatory bodies tested. The temptation of going for a piecemeal reform and adopting changes in fits and starts must, therefore, be avoided at all costs.
A three-pronged approach could be adopted to ensure as fair and as efficient method as possible.
First, it should be ensured there are enough magistrates to conduct the compilation of evidence within the shortest possible time – not exceeding one month – by collecting all the available evidence, not just a fraction, as often happens, before declaring there are sufficient grounds to issue a bill of indictment.
Second, the Commission for the Administration of Justice should ensure that the quality of the magistrates appointed to sit on such proceedings and eventual judgment is of the highest standard possible.
Third, remedies and sanctions should be in place in the eventuality that police officers and/or the attorney general drag their feet.
The ultimate aim should always be to protect the accused, the injured party, the administration of justice and, ultimately, society itself.