Parliament passes law to make judges work

Apr 24, 2009 News

Charles Ramson

Clarissa Riehl

By Gary Eleazar
The National Assembly yesterday unanimously agreed that the Time Limit for Judicial Decisions Bill was long overdue and was born out of a lack of diligence in the Judiciary.
The Bill was tabled in the House by Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Senior Counsel Charles Ramson, who explained that the provisions, namely the time limits for the making of decisions by Judges in civil cases, was a break from tradition in the region in that none of the other Caribbean countries had such legislation.

According to Ramson, there was an overwhelming public outcry over the slothfulness on the part of some Judges after all of the evidence was presented.
Under the new legislation, a Judge who persistently does not make timely decisions would be removed from the bench.

It was pointed out that this was set out in the most recent Constitution reform in 2001 but at that time it had stipulated that it would be left up to the Parliament to assign a time limit for decisions to be made.
“There are many delays that plague the system,” Ramson told the House, explaining that the Bill was not complicated and just sets out to ensure that the Judiciary is brought within the regulatory process.

Shadow Legal Affairs Minister, Clarissa Riehl voiced her support for the long overdue legislation but pointed out that a range of additional resources was required to aid the Judges in carrying out their tasks.
According to Mrs Riehl, one of the reasons hampering speedy decisions by Judges was the way in which evidence was taken. “Imagine in this day and age a Judge still has to be writing every word long hand.”
She insisted that the Courts should be provided with a ‘dicta’ phone or some other type of verbatim recording device.

The Shadow Legal Affairs Minister, whilst drawing reference to the sever backlog of and newly filed civil cases, was also adamant that the complement of Judges should immediately be increased from its current 11, along with the Chief Justice which was implemented in 1975.
Riehl also pointed to the need for a research assistant for the Judges, adding that there was no shortage given that the University churns out scores of lawyers.

“We need to support Judges with adequate resources so that they could do their work…In Trinidad and Tobago their courts have computers…It is high time Judges get aid.”
She pointed out that as legislator there cannot just be talk of deficiencies but must also equally address the constraints experienced by the Judges.
Alliance for Change Chairman, Khemraj Ramjattan said that his party was wholly in support of the Bill, never mind that it was seven years late.

The fact that a Bill had to be laid in Parliament to ensure Judges did their jobs was an indictment of Judges.
“We must understand that justice delayed is justice denied.”
PPP stalwart and Member of Parliament, Moses Nagamootoo also voiced his support for the Bill, describing it as a “call to duty” in that the judicial system needs to do better in spite of the constraints.
Ramson said that he was amazed at the length of time some judges took to make decisions and whilst he did accept that there were some constraints he said that those should be no excuse.
He said that assistance such as audio recorders would be forthcoming and that the Bill was just a nudge in the right direction.
The Time Limit for Judicial Decisions Bill is aimed at ensuring that a case be tried as expeditiously as possible in an endeavour to conclude the case within such time as the complexity and relevant evidence necessitate.

Under the proposed piece of legislation, a Judge may be removed from office “for persistently not writing decisions or for continuously failing to give decisions and reasons within such time as may be specified by Parliament.”
The Bill seeks to give effect to the Constitutional requirement to specify a time limit for a Judge to give his decision and reasons for the decisions.
The proposed legislation also provides that a Judge shall give the decision of a civil case at the conclusion of the hearing of the case or as soon as possible after the conclusion of the hearing but not later than 120 days from the date of the conclusion of the hearing.