Should time limits be imposed for judges to give judgments?

THE EDITOR: I support my colleague Anthony Manwah. No doubt he will be faced with a backlash of negative comments from expected quarters.

Judges are not above the law. They are public functionaries who are paid tax-free salaries and allowances to dispense public justice and resolve disputes.

It cannot be denied that some judges have failed to give decisions after many years. If a survey is taken, I am sure many of my colleagues would agree with me.

Why is there not a law that judges must render a decision within a determined time?

The problem is the independence of judges is constitutionally protected. Their terms and conditions of service cannot be changed to their disadvantage. Any imposition of time limits for them to do their job may be seen, by them, as negatively affecting their tenure.

In 2017 the Judiciary published the Statements of Principle and Guidelines for Judicial Conduct. A hefty document which the judges have voluntary subscribed to, comprising some 66 pages of lofty and idealistic sounding statements of judicial best-practices.

In that wonderful document the judges have agreed that decisions should be given “as soon as reasonably possible, having regard to the urgency of the matter and other special circumstances.” Special circumstances were defined to include illness, length or complexity of the case, an unusually heavy workload or other unspecified factors making it “impossible to give judgment sooner.”

The vagueness and fluffiness of this principle is matched only by its startling sincerity!

I doubt that anyone would hire an employee under terms that essentially leave it up to him to decide when to finish his work.

In any event, the Statements of Principle and Guidelines of Judicial Conduct states very clearly in its opening statements that these principles are a so-called “framework” for regulating judicial conduct and are intended to assist the public to better understand the judicial role.

The document also makes it quite clear that the statements “are not and shall not be used as a code or list of prohibited behaviours defining judicial misconduct under section 137 of the Constitution.

So what’s the sense then of having a Code of Conduct that cannot be enforced?

It is hypocritical for those who judge others to subscribe to a Code of Conduct that says that it cannot be enforced against them.

The Court’s procedural rules are full of instances where clients and even attorneys can be penalised by judges for delays – when they file late documents or late submissions. It is only right that judges too be subject to similar time limits as well.

Delays in the administration of justice cannot be addressed by only keeping attorneys and clients on a tight leash. Once judges are allowed to sit on their decisions until they are ready, all the parties in those matters will continue to be adversely affected by uncertainty and in some cases, continued financial damage.

I believe that we have moved very far as a society from the notion of judges being somehow aloof and a class above the ordinary citizen. They are paid handsomely to decide cases, plain and simple.

In 2021, Belize passed its Time Limits for Judicial Decisions Act, which set a 180-day deadline from the conclusion of the hearing, with a fixed procedure and criterion for judges to apply to the Judicial and Legal Service Commission for extensions of time. It also amended the Constitution to provide that a judge may be removed from office for persistently failing to give written decisions and reasons for decisions within the time limits prescribed.

Do our legislators wish to provoke the ire of their lordships and ladyships by passing a similar Act here?

I think the time has come to have actionable rules that set standards and timelines to be followed by the judges in delivering their decisions. I believe that clear timelines with a mechanism for them to obtain extensions of time from the Judicial and Legal Service Commission in defined circumstances, would not change their terms and conditions to their disadvantage.

After all, shouldn’t they embrace the ideas of certainty and promptitude, which themselves underpin their Civil Proceedings Rules?

The irony in all of this is that any legislation which seeks to impose time limits on judgments would probably be tested by the judges themselves – before their own bench. This happened many years ago when the Court held that judges were not subject to the requirements of the Integrity in Public Life Act. Amazingly, that decision was never appealed to the Privy Council.

Who will judge the judges?

Darrell P. Allahar

attorney-at-law

via e-mail