Who is popular today?

WAYNE KUBLALSINGH
ON DECEMBER 2, Nazma Muller, Adrian Gookool, Elizabeth Solomon and Denise Pitcher, the executive director of the Caribbean Centre for Human Rights, and myself met with the Director of Public Prosecution, Roger Gaspard, at his Richmond Street office.
Gaspard was bold, forthcoming and enlightening. He agreed to review a list of cases of inmates that we had compiled. Although “the bandwidth of problems in the criminal justice system was too broad” (Gaspard) to cover in a two-hour meeting, the following issues were discussed:
Plea Bargaining Act: One of the purposes of this act was to cure delays. But litigants and their attorneys are not tripping over themselves to get to the DPP’s office to plea-bargain.
First, accused people are not generally informed by their attorneys of this right and measure in law. Thus, ordinary litigants are not aware of this legal option.
Second, magistrates courts, which ought to inform litigants on first appearance of this law (Plea Bargaining Act: section 12) generally do not.
Third, even people who are aware of this law do not use this option. Accused people and their attorneys often presume they could win. But many spend more time in prison than they would have had they plea-bargained; some even longer than the statutory time for their convictions.
The Mercy Committee: The presiding officer on the Mercy Committee is the Attorney General. The Minister of National Security, the DPP and others sit on the committee. Apparently, not enough applications/petitions are made to the committee. If such applications are made, via letters directed to the executive secretary, the committee is obliged to meet, and its recommendations forwarded to the President.
Recently the Attorney General announced that the numbers in the prison system may be whittled down in the face of the covid19 crisis. Certain categories of prisoners may be freed. Was it the best option for the Attorney General to take this matter to court? Does he not, sitting in Cabinet, have the authority to collaborate with the Minister of National Security, seek the assistance of the Prisons Commissioner for a list of eligible inmates, and consider these cases at the Mercy Committee?
Police prosecutions: Ninety per cent of cases before the magistracy do not go to the DPP’s office. Police prosecution is a time-consuming affair. On a typical day in any magistrates court the bulk of matters are adjourned. Police officers, whose desks are already piled high with past and ongoing cases, given our high crime rate, often have to press their seams for court or prosecution duties, only to be told by the magistracy to come back another day.
Thousands of hours are spent by our police in courts in thousands of minor matters. Additionally, police prosecuting on behalf of police may lead to bias. Low-level forensics and expertise also lead to long delays in preliminary inquiries. A better resourced DPP’s office handling more prosecutions is preferable.
Court backlog: Even if the system of preliminary inquires is altered and foreshortened, as the State is trying to do, when matters reach the courts they will still encounter backlog. The magistracy and courts generally are bogged down with cases, and have become abusive.
Much may be done to cure this (I add, courts on the prison compound, more “summary” courts). The pool of judges in the High Court, for example, may be expanded. Even if the capacity and experience is not there now, these posts may be advertised globally. Such backlog makes common misery for police, prison officers and inmates alike. Alert and committed attorneys may, or ought to, have trials stopped or stayed because of undue delay.
Dystopian delay: The entire system is backlogged, beset by chronic delay. Administrative delay at the magistracy or High Court spawns injustice and unfairness. Sometimes a matter might be heard by the magistracy, a warrant of commitment issued, and this takes four, five, six years to reach the Office of the DPP.
Certain judges robustly treat with unreasonable delays by errant attorneys; some do not. An attorney appointed via Legal Aid might have three or four cases. If he is unable to attend court, all his matters are adjourned. The dispensing of resources is a political function and might not always prioritise funding for optimal administration
Representation: The collective work of superior attorneys and courts develops the quality of jurisprudence in the jurisdiction. This is not the goal of all attorneys. Actions which might be taken to save clients, their families, the court from unreasonable delay are averted or subverted. Some take on too many cases. Some do not properly advise their clients. Some stretch out the pocket linings of their clients. Some are too involved in internecine rivalry. Victims and their litigant families are key victims of the system.
Collective responsibility: Gaspard elaborated on the often defeated rights of victims, communities and the public. His ideas were clear, passionate and precise. Each part of our criminal justice system is falling short. No one or part of the system is immune from the charge of administrative lapse or impropriety. There are no sacred cows. The keepers of justice must awaken to the alarums signalled by the public. Members of our group, he avowed, are legitimate stakeholders. I add: we cannot fix crime until we fix the crimes in our criminal justice system.
Wayne Kublalsingh
The post Criminal justice injustice appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.