Justice delayed is more than justice denied. Along with eroding trust in the justice system and weakening the social contract, it sets off a chain reaction that affects the mental health of all involved parties. It is a burden for victims, witnesses and defendants, and for society as a whole.

Delays in the judicial process create a ripple effect with far-reaching consequences on the human psyche. From my experience as a former public prosecutor in trials by jury, defendants awaiting trial often exhibit psychosomatic symptoms as a consequence of the delay, including anxiety, feelings of helplessness and pessimism about the future.

Those in pre-trial detention face harsh conditions such as limited accommodation space and harsh restrictions in prison, amplifying this mental toll.

The deterioration of their health is directly proportionate to the length of their exposure to legal proceedings. Not only that, but the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is undermined, as defendants endure years of public scrutiny, financial loss and personal damage, long before any verdict.

Delay in our criminal justice system has long been perceived as a serious problem not easily controlled by the executive, legislative or judicial branches of government. The public, the individual offender and the victim have a right to the prompt disposition of the criminal case in which they are involved.

Delay undermines not only the effectiveness but also, and especially importantly, the reliability and credibility of the system. Delay dilutes the strength of the prosecution, because victims and witnesses, burdened by the duration of the proceedings and/or the necessity of repeated court appearances, lose interest, refuse to cooperate, or are no longer capable of contributing evidence because of the long time between the occurrence of the offence and the court hearing.

There are many reasons for this concern about delay in the criminal justice system.

An expert may delay the case processing if his report takes longer because of necessary special examinations (medical, psychiatric or psychological) or analysis (chemical, physical or other). Delay may also be caused by the fact that a special expert is needed for the case and is not available, or because of problems with some forensic tools. To reduce this possibility of a delay, why not give the court the possibility to arrange a term to deliver the report and to impose sanctions if the expert does not submit his report in time?

As to the other participants, we have many causes that may delay the case processing.

Waiting time often cannot be avoided because of the rights of the victim or defendant or due to procedural restraints. A delay may be in the interest of the offender, e.g., to remain at a special pre-trial detention centre, to get time to show the court good behaviour, or simply to remain free in case a custodial sentence is expected.

If the defendant or the victim or witness is ill, old, disabled or not able to follow the proceedings for other reasons, this causes delay, as does the fact that he is abroad or is a foreigner and does not speak the language of the court. Victims and witnesses can cause delays if they give conflicting testimonies and evidence or withdraw their testimony.

If a case has to be dealt with by special police departments and those departments have a case overload at that particular time, this can cause a delay as any queuing effect might.  As the prosecutor makes decisions concerning the charge, its seriousness and its complexity, the decision can have an important influence on delay.

Defence lawyers have considerable potential influence on how and when the case is disposed of. With them, cases tend to move more slowly than cases handled without any counsel or by a criminal legal aid lawyer.

Other possibilities for intended delay by the defence are when a guilty verdict is certain, and the defence tries to gain time for whatever purpose or to produce reasons for an appeal.

The law itself might be a cause for delay in the criminal justice system. Sometimes, penal and procedural law is too complicated, and we have procedural restraints because of special laws that are difficult to handle.

A centuries-old legal maxim, "justice delayed is justice denied," guides the belief in the importance of expeditious and fair trials, but burgeoning caseloads in our judicial system are reaching a breaking point.

From a systemic perspective, there is a perfect storm of delays and backlogs coupled with too few judges to manage the exponential growth in caseloads. Delays cascade into an unending and burdensome impact on the entire court docket and a multitude of up- and downstream processes.

A judicial backlog is more than a mere inconvenience.

On the civil side of the law, delays in resolving business disputes can have economic repercussions that hinder economic activities and growth. For circumstances where judicial intervention may be required, delays can be emotionally devastating to individuals who await a civil resolution of cases involving child custody, separation and divorce.

Like everyone else, when faced with backlogs and increasing workloads, judges and magistrates may rush to decisions without full consideration of the merits of each case and impartial application of the law. In other words, because they are human, they can make mistakes that have deleterious consequences for the people who seek their help.

Solutions aren't easy. They almost never are, but our judicial system remains in dire need of innovative thinking and a multi-pronged systemic approach to problem resolution.

Dr Mark Said is a lawyer