Each and every year, the Forensic Year starts in October. And, each and every year, one of the main topics that is dealt with by the Chief Justice and the Chamber of Advocates president is the need to find ways and means how the law courts could function better than they do.

By functioning better, it is presumed that they mean that unnecessary delays are avoided, and that judgments are handed out within a reasonable timeframe. The problem is that nobody knows what this reasonable timeframe is.

Last Wednesday, Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano called for an independent study on the causes of the judiciary’s backlog, while Dr Andrew Borg Cardona called for an analysis to dispel the common belief that a miracle is needed for cases to be concluded in as short a time as possible.

Although there has been an improvement in reducing the length of time taken to conclude court cases, this improvement is not enough. Chief Justice De Gaetano pointed out weak work practices, lack of support staff and increasing workload as being among the main reasons which led to delays.

His suggestion to hold an independent analysis to establish why it takes so long for cases to be decided, and possibly find remedies to resolve the situation, should be welcomed – and implemented – by the government.

With the Administration of Justice Commission and the Judicial Studies Committee too involved to be truly objective, an independent working group would be able to go deeper into the issue without any fears of treading on anyone’s toes.

Again, if this suggestion is taken up, it is hoped that – and we are not saying this tongue in cheek – such an analysis is carried out quickly and any recommendations implemented in a short while too.

There are too many cases that drag on for too many years unnecessarily. Cases that can be dealt with in a three or four sittings sometimes take 10 or more, and these are stretched out over four or more years. There have been occasions when there is a six to eight month gap between one sitting and another. Sometimes people go to court and their case is not even heard for some reason, wasting time and perhaps even a day of vacation leave for nothing. Some lawyers also play the procrastination game too, prolonging the case as much as possible especially when they feel that there is little chance of a victory.

The analysis advocated by the Chief Justice can lead to less delays and inconvenience, and the government should seriously consider taking up the suggestion.

The Chief Justice mentioned another important matter in his address – he said that the time has come for an act regulating orders banning the publication of names. While acknowledging the need for a balance between the exigencies of justice and the right to a free press, the public’s questioning of certain ban orders issued by the judiciary needs to be looked into.

There has to be uniformity in the way such matters are tackled. While it is understandable that in some cases the court orders a ban on the publication of the accused’s name to protect the identity of the victim, particularly where minors are concerned, in other cases the court decision to ban the name is more questionable and this undermines the credibility of the courts. There should be better guidelines as to when the court can order a ban on the publication of a name and when it cannot.