CurrentCommentary
Chief Justice'sAddress at the Opening of the Grand Court, 16 January, 2002
Hon. AnthonySmellie, Chief justice
As always the mission of the judicial administrationremains the provision of an accountable and transparent systemof justice in which timeliness and efficiency are the hallmarks,while ensuring fairness, equality, accessibility and integrity.
The extent to which there is public confidenceand trust in the administration of justice is the extent to whichthat mission is ultimately achieved.
Attracting and maintaining public confidenceand trust like the overall mission itself, is an ongoing challenge.It is nonetheless a challenge which must be met by all who areinvolved in the administration of justice including those of thelegal profession who are officers of the court.
The accountability and transparency of whichwe speak are vital prerequisites and as there is no such thingas human infallibility; criticism is sometimes to be expected.There is however a concommittant responsibility in everyone whowould criticize: in order to maintain an objective environmentin which public trust and confidence in the administration ofjustice can be sustained, criticism must be factual, temperateand objective.
If criticism is merely scandalous of thecourts, personally disparaging of its officers or based on a misunderstandingof the facts, it will be misleading at best. At worst it can lead,if it goes unchecked, to the erosion of the vital trust and confidenceof the public which we serve.
Everyone has a duty to recognise and observethese principles and parameters, not least those in public office,whether within or outside of the justice system. As the preservationof this objective environment which is so necessary for the administrationof justice requires vigilance, a salutary reminder on occasionslike this, is always appropriate. with that salutary reminderof the importance of our mission.
We now turn to report on developments inthe usual way.
Youth justice: thefacilities, reforms judicial education and training
The number of cases coming before the youthcourt rose to 331 last year from 225 in the year 2000, an alarminglyhigh increase of nearly 50%. Increasing also was the number ofthese cases which involved serious offences. A copy of the listof cases taken only last week in the youth court will be madeavailable with this report. It is illustrative of types of seriousoffences now routinely coming before that court.
To better meet the demands and challengeswhich some of these cases present, the honourable magistratesnow preside in the youth courts on certain days each month. Membersof the experienced and dedicated panel of justices who have voluntarilyserved for many years in this court, sit with the magistratesas observers and continue to preside on other days. They alsocontinue to deal with the childcare cases in the juvenile courtof which there were 37 in 2001.
The conditions under which justice mustbe dispensed in these hundreds of cases involving children hasbecome inappropriate and unacceptable. The youth and juvenilecourts have no permanent base. Because these are courts whichthe law properly requires to be held in camera, we always tryto convene them within this building. But this is a building originallydesigned more than 30 years ago for 2 courts sitting simultaneouslywhereas nowadays often as many as 7 or 8 courts are convened.The problems are even more exacerbated when the youth court mustbe held at the town hall or in Kirk house. Concerns over privacy,security and proper administration will continue to hamper theability to deal with these cases so long as they must be dealtwith under the present inappropriate conditions.
The hiatus over the reintroduction of thechildren law still lingers. Once again, in anticipation of itspassage, this year we have provided a modest budget for judicialtraining to focus on the changes which it will bring. This willbe undertaken by the judicial training programme of the commonwealthmagistrates and judges association and will be the first of aprogramme of continuing judicial education at all levels.
The call from this court for the provisionof suitable remand facilities for youth offenders has now becomea perennial refrain. Sadly it must be repeated today in lightof the continuing uncertainty over the policies for youth reform.We note with a sense of relief however, the decision to at leasttemporarily extend the life of the C.I.M.I. programme which hasrecently seen a marked improvement in orientation, focus and drive.We also welcome the report recently tabled in the assembly bythe Hon. Minister on youth violence with its emphasis on the needfor restorative justice, early intervention and care - preceptswhich found earlier expression in the recommendations for sentencingreform and in other reports from this court. We take this opportunityto reaffirm that the judicial administration is ready and willingto consult and work with the other agencies of government andwith the Hon. Minister for Youth Affairs in particular, towardsthe development of appropriate programs and infrastructure.
Sentencing reforms,tariffs and Guidelines
Many of the recommendations submitted togovernment in October 2000 still await enabling legislation. Itis understood that now that the legal drafting department is upto full complement and other emergency measures out of the way,they can and will be given priority. In the meantime, communityservice orders which were finally implemented in year 2000 havebecome widely utilised by the courts and are reported to be workingeffectively.
The groundwork for the introduction of drugcourts is being laid: a discussion draft of the legislation hasbeen circulated and the bill should shortly be presented to thegovernor in council for submission to the assembly. Last year,teams of treatment providers, including members of the judiciary,attended preparatory seminars in Jamaica and Canada. A furtherseminar will be conducted in Grand Cayman later this year to whichthe judiciary, court administration, other participatory agenciesand the criminal bar will be invited. It was four years ago thatthen Chief Justice Harre last announced sentencing tariffs andguidelines. Since then, uncertainty has arisen about the applicabilityof those tariffs and guidelines, particularly as they might applyto drug offences. This was emphasised in a recent judgment ofthis court. This led to a decision to revisit the tariffs andguidelines and with the able assistance of our articled clerkand research assistant, an index has been compiled for all themajor categories of offences since 1998. The magistrates and thejudges of this and the court of appeal have consulted and we willtoday announce updated guidelines and tariffs, much of which willbe in reaffirmation of those announced in 1998.
They will be presented by Mr. Justice Grahamlater on and along with the compiled index, will be availablefor purchase at cost on disc or in hard copy. This court willalso later be issuing a practice direction sentencing after moredetailed consultation within the judiciary.
Staff: changes andconditions of work
We were pleased to welcome Mrs Delene Cachoon her return in May from her attachment with the Lord Chancellor'sdepartment. During that attachment she undertook intensive assignmentsat courts in London and elsewhere in England and Wales. Sincethe departure of Mr Beckett in September, Mrs Cacho has been actingas Court Administrator and I expect that she will shortly be confirmedto that position. Similarly, Mr Foldats has been acting as Clerkof Courts, and Mrs Audrey Bodden has been acting as Senior Deputyand as Registrar of the Court of Appeal. With the introductionthis year of the new costs rules, Mr Foldats will also be assumingthe duties of Taxing Master under those rules. Special mentionmust also be made of the direct assistance which the Clerk ofCourts and Maintenance Officer now give for the bringing of familymatters before the courts. Several cases for maintenance in particularhave been speedily resolved with their help. I commend them andindeed all members of staff for their continued dedication andhard work despite the ever increasing workload and the difficultconditions under which they work.
Courts buildings andcourts users forum
The lack of proper facilities for the Youthand Juvenile Courts and thecramped conditions under which staffwork in this building are but two of the many inadequacies ofthe present court facilities. I am obliged once again to explainthe practical difficulties which result. There is very littlespace available for public waiting areas and for the necessaryinteraction between the public and staff. There exists virtuallyno such area for the sort of private interaction between the clientpublic and staff which is necessary for cases involving childrenand other family matters.
There is growing concern over security anddiscipline of prisoners primarily because the space demanded bytheir numbers has long since surpassed the confines of the holdingcells below. This was a main point of concern raised in the recentreport of Sir David Ramsbotham on his inspection of the prisonsand related facilities.
The work in this jurisdiction has grownso as to require a building specially designed to house the operationsof the summary court. Such a building would provide for the workof six divisions- youth, family, civil, criminal, coroners anddrugs courts.
The Summary Court in all those divisions,along with the Grand Court (in all its divisions) and the Courtof Appeal, have for far too many years had to be supported bya single registry staff working under very inadequate conditions.If these conditions persist for much longer, the timely and efficientadministration of justice will be the ultimate victim.
While we are able to alleviate some of theseproblem by means of the temporary facilities at Kirk House, aviable solution requires a new building.
This chronic need for additional court facilitieswas first recognised by the judicial administration and by governmentmore than a decade ago. Plans were developed and announced thenbut nothing happened. More recently and particularly over thelast three years and with the agreement of government, those planswere revitalised and again announced to the public. A sinkingfund to be established for the development was agreed and fundsearmarked.
Despite the clear need and the long history,those funds were diverted during the course of last year to otherpurposes elsewhere in government and so the sinking fund is yetto be established. I emphasise the urgent need to establish thatfund. This can be done this year from funds which have been identifiedso that the delayed hope of breaking ground in three years timecan be realised.
For that and other reasons of concerns whichhave been expressed, the Court Users' Forum which fell into disusesome years ago, is to be reintroduced. As before, it will be comprisedof representatives of the legal profession, the probation department,the police service, the prison service, the childcare institutions,Caribbean haven, the justices of the peace association and thecourt's administration.
Their first brief will be to consider theschematic layout for a summary courts building which has beenprocured by the public works department. This must be done beforethe design is further developed. It is important that the judicialadministration considers its clients and the environment in whichit operates so that it might provide the most appropriate andadequate facilities.
Rules committee andsub-committees and summary court civil jurisdiction
These committees continued their usual finework with the completion of the new costs rules, and importantamendments to the matrimonial causes rules in 2001.
This year their work will continue withimmediate priority being given to judicial case management, rulesfor limited oral discovery in civil cases and reform of the summarycourt rules for enforcement of civil judgments of that court.
Legislation to give effect to the proposals for the expansionof the civil jurisdiction of that court is still awaited.
Computerisation
Progress here continues to be tediouslyslow, much of the difficulty being attributable to the requirementthat the court's system must be networked with the rest of government.The need for this requirement will be reconsidered.
Apart from the difficulties already beingexperienced, there will also be the need to ensure confidentialitybefore we might institute a modern system of electronic filingor access to files within the court registry.
Statistics
We will conclude this report by giving theusual summary of the most notable statistics. A full table ofthem will be attached to this report and copies will be availablefrom my office:
1. We have already mentioned the alarmingrise in the number and seriousness of youth court cases.
Any meaningful response to the problem ofyouth crime will require the co-ordinated efforts of all agenciesand an intensive programme of early intervention.
The ability of the courts to respond ina meaningful way will depend on the sentencing and other legalreforms which have been proposed and on the creation of the appropriatefacilties.
The hope of a successful response fade with every passing year.
2. The number of criminal cases coming beforethe summary courts from within Grand Cayman also experienced asharp rise from 5297 in 2000 to 6947 in 2001 an increaseof approximately 30%.
The number of criminal cases coming from Cayman Brac showed anequally dramatic rise from 94 in 2000 to 158 in 2001.
3. In the Grand Court, 70 new indictmentswere filed for trial. 101 indictments were tried or disposed of,reflecting a carry over of 31 from year 2000.
710 new civil cases were filed in 2001.
As a further illustration of the increasein the workload and output of the judicial administration overthe years, those figures are to be contrasted with 9 indictmentsand 433 civil cases in the grand court in 1983.
Similar exponential increases have occurred in the number of casestaken in the Summary Court.
4. In the court of appeal, 49 criminal appealsand 23 civil appeals were heard in 2001, compared to 54 and 23respectively in year 2000.
Rates of disposal
Notwithstanding the increases in case volumesparticularly in the Summary and Youth courts, the rate of disposalcontinues at an acceptable level.
Better than reported in year 2000, therewere in 2001 two criminal cases awaiting trial in the SummaryCourt for more than one year. The average time for disposal ofindictable cases was 127 days between intake in the Summary Courtand committal to the Grand Court and 170 days from committal inthe Grand Court to final disposal.
Thus indictable cases are now being takeninto the Summary Court, committed to and tried before the GrandCourt in under 10 months, on average. This is an admirable levelof efficiency which we can hope to sustain only with the positivemotivation of all concerned and with the appropriate environmentin which to perform.
This favourable trend continues throughoutthe work of the summary court although it is noted that thereare 5 part-heard cases.