FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 15, 2005
AS-63-2005
A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission
Better management could address Sri Lanka’s delays in justice
That Sri Lanka’s criminal justice system has a conviction rate of only about four per cent is often noted. The primary cause for this dismal rate, which is less often noted, is delays in justice. These delays are usually attributed to heavy court workloads. But in fact, the problem of workloads is itself the product of far bigger defects.
Why is it that delays occur in Sri Lankan courts, particularly in serious cases tried in the High courts? A former high court judge who spoke recently to the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) recounted the first lesson given to him by a high court judge in whose court he began work. This judge told him that at least ten cases should be completed per month. Twelve cases if completed would be reasonable, while 15 cases would be a good performance. He recalled those days with some admiration, stating that today even two cases may not be completed within a month.
Jury trials are now optional. The choice is with the accused, which is to say the lawyers of the accused. One advantage of a jury trial is that when a hearing begins it will usually continue each day until complete. However, when trials are heard without juries there are usually many postponements. Many partly heard cases will be fixed for a single working day. Very often, only parts of a witness’s evidence can be heard on that day. In some cases the evidence of a single person is stretched across several days that are spread over several months or more. From the evidence of one witness to the next there may be gaps of one or two years, prolonging the whole trial process and defeating the possibility of speedy justice.
Judges and prosecutors are unable to work effectively under these conditions. With a pile of partly heard cases, they have inadequate time to prepare for each one, in contrast to when a case is heard from start to finish. To succeed under the adversarial justice system prosecutors need to develop a strategy and carry it through. This is made much more difficult when cases are spread out across months and years. Meanwhile, a judge may be transferred before a case is done. To complete it, the judge must be gazetted to come back to the same court. Alternatively, trials are begun all over again, particularly when judges are promoted to higher courts or retired.
Victims of crime and their witnesses face even greater obstacles. Many endure threats and harassment until the giving of evidence is completed. The threats are very often realised, as in the case of Gerald Perera, who was murdered allegedly to prevent him from giving evidence against police accused of torture. In many other cases, lesser known victims and witnesses have suffered a similar fate. The exacerbation of threats against witnesses by delays in justice is of particular concern in view of the absence of an effective witness protection scheme in Sri Lanka. A solicitor general recently admitted that the low conviction rate is mostly due to the fact that witnesses do not come to court–or change their evidence–due to fear of retribution.
The delays in justice experienced by Sri Lankans will not be overcome simply by increasing the number of judges, prosecutors and courts. The question is how the workload can be managed better to enhance basic principles of fair trial and improve efficiency. This is a question that needs close examination by competent and independent judicial authorities. Whereas in many countries reviews of judicial management and adoption of new approaches through well-considered recommendations are common, the same cannot be said of Sri Lanka.
Social stability depends upon speedy and effective courts. An enlightened public discussion is desperately needed in Sri Lanka in order that justice institutions function more efficiently. The protection and promotion of human rights is not possible without strong expressions of public interest. The delays occurring in Sri Lanka’s courts deserve a far greater amount of concern among those who care for the rule of law as well as social stability.
