The Tribune

IT’S a dilemma lawyers overcome easily, giving their legal best to represent people they do not necessarily like. They take an oath to seek justice for those who seek it even if it feels like the person demanding it does not deserve it. They do what they were trained to do, protect the less likeable or even the guilty, to preserve the process that allows everyone to have confidence in a system that works.

Lawyers know how to separate personal feelings from professional obligation. I’m not so good at that.

So today’s column is one of the hardest I have had to write. Not because it is a tale of death or heinous crime or tragic loss. Nothing so dramatic, it’s just hard because I am standing up for someone whose opinions I am totally opposed to, someone whose bellicose bellyaching could tear this country apart. Yet, in fairness to a system that does not discriminate between those whose opinions are healthy and those whose opinions are less so, I have agreed to tackle the issue of what happens when judges occupy such a vaulted position that lawyers are afraid to stand up to them for fear of the treatment they will get the next time they appear before them and what that means to a single individual’s rights.

What happens when judges take years to issue a ruling and a life hangs in the balance, and lawyers who want to speak up about the lack of urgency are stilled and silenced by fear? Or when a ruling is issued with damages to be paid by the State, appeals are heard and no payment is forthcoming for years, leaving the individual who was successful on paper living on the streets with nothing but hope and patience as steady companions? What recourse does a successful plaintiff have when his or her life is hanging in limbo waiting for the day when what was handed down in an order is handed over in something that can buy a cup of coffee?

Of the many cases that fall into these categories of prolonged rulings and even longer waits for restitution in an environment where judges are not held accountable, one recent case stands out. It involves a political activist, Speaking up and speaking out for justice – even if the victim is someone whose opinions scare the living daylights out of you is everyone’s responsibility. We understood Black Lives Matter. We need to learn how to embrace All Lives Matter and that includes those before the courts. That is why I have agreed to tackle the issue of quirks of time and fate in a system we call justice.

What follows was inspired by a court case that just wrapped up with the final 3-person Court of Appeal opinion signed by Sir Michael Barnett on September 15, 2022. While the matter did involve someone who is a headline hugger, this was a quiet civil case that had no relevance to the individual’s political posturing. The case dragged through the courts waiting for an opinion from the trial judge for nearly five years before a ruling was issued and though the individual was not fully successful and was ordered to pay a certain sum, what happened following the delayed judgment is part of what triggered a forceful fistful of words from the Court of Appeal.

The trigger – an addendum to the judgment ordering the plaintiff to pay the judgment against him in 30 days or face imprisonment. There had been no further hearings, no appearance, just a sudden attachment to a judgment. Wait a minute. Like him or not, this is a citizen of The Bahamas who claimed he was the victim in the civil case, waited years for a judgment, has one 5-figure fee to pay, and is threatened with imprisonment. Reference to old seafood is not necessary; the Court of Appeals swept in like a tsunami with Sir Michael Barnett writing a very thoughtful 20-page opinion that called the trial judge’s excuse about not getting all the transcripts “lamentable”, dictating that “judges must balance their time,” and noting that “Litigants have a constitutional right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. That it should take more than 4 years to deliver a judgment in a case as simple as this,” he wrote, “is incredulous. It is a blight on the administration of justice.”

The right of a fair trial within a reasonable amount of time is as old as the first Bible, with one source saying the rabbis mentioned it long before the birth of Christianity.

In Exodus 18:22, it is mentioned by Jethro. In the Magna Carta of 1215, Clause 40 reads “To no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.”

In an age when we can post ourselves at lunch on Instagram and followers see it as we taste and savour the next morsel, why is it taking longer than ever for justice to be served, for judges to render opinions, for rulings to be adhered to?

Why, when technology is lightning fast and we expect results in every facet of our existence at speeds never before delivered, do we slow our steps to a painful crawl and expect so little in real time from our court system? If justice hurried is justice buried, is it really a lack of resources or is it, as Sir Michael said, time management?

Does the donning of a robe protect the wearer from the same daily burdens us non-robe-wearing folks face – the deadlines, the pressure, the never-ending demands on our time?

Do we ourselves protect them with our lesser expectations in delivery time to preserve them for the wisdom they will dispense when they get around to it?

I know this sounds callous, and borderline disrespectful. And who am I to judge? But I am not the one I am sounding off for, but the thousands whose cases linger and languish and whose lives are lived in limbo because of it.

Most of our judges deserve the respect they garner. I’ve read opinions so impressive they would stand up to the best legal minds anywhere. But whether in criminal or civil cases, those who stand outside waiting for a court date, another hearing, a trial, for all the motions to be heard or the appeal to run its course as the calendar pages of their lives turn, regardless of their likeability or lack thereof, their lives matter.