Attorneys often unfairly blamed for delays in the courts
At the request of one of BFP’s prolific commenters, ‘Robert Ross’, we’ve opened a new page where Mr. Ross and others so inclined keep us all apprised of some of the court delays and other disasters in justice.
Mr. Ross is not a lawyer but in his own words was “in the law in my way for 44 years.” He obviously is still privy to stories and situations that the public doesn’t usually hear about. He also rightly observes that many of the delays are caused by the court system, but often it is the attorneys who are unfairly blamed.
Here’s the first contribution from Mr. Ross, and you’ll also find it at the top under the “Courting Disaster” tab. If Mr. Ross will continue to leave his work as comments or submit them via email or our contact page, we’ll be happy to maintain a central list of just how long folks have to wait for justice in our understaffed and inefficient Barbados courts.
May 30, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Due Process in this blog refers to delay caused by attorneys. I have some sympathy with that, though not in relation to the criminal justice system. I do recognise, of course that Due Process’ perception is a common one – and it is one fuelled by information ‘pushed’ by the Free Presses – which is sometimes very misleading.
I am not a practising lawyer – though I was in the law in my way for 44 years. I am saying this to make the point that I have no axe to grind. I do have access to information, however, which would not be accessible by those who are not lawyers. So on this question of delay, I intend to publish ‘delay’ situations as I meet them in the hope of achieving a better understanding of its causes. I will publish them in the most recent posts – if you will permit me.
Here are two cases which came my way today. Both relate to family matters.
Case 1 – Access
The case came up for hearing in mid-March. A Welfare report was ordered and the case adjourned till early April. At the April hearing there was no report. The case was adjourned till end of May. At the May hearing there was still no report. The same lawyers appeared on all three occasions.
The Welfare Department is over stretched and there was difficulty in locating one of the parties for Welfare to compile the report..
Case 2 – Custody
Middle March a Welfare report was requested by the Court. The case was heard in middle-to-late May. There was no Welfare report. The day before this hearing, the attorney for one party discovered that though the Court Clerk had drafted the letter to Welfare, in fact it had never been sent. Case adjourned till mid June.
You will understand that in neither of these cases were the attorneys at fault.
BFP – perhaps you might like to keep a record.