Criminal review system in collapse, Judge warns

A CRUCIAL part of Namibia’s criminal justice system that was designed to help ensure that justice is done in the country’s Magistrates’ Courts has fallen apart.

The criminal review system, which is aimed at ensuring that unrepresented accused persons receive justice in criminal trials in Namibia’s Magistrate’s Courts, “has all but collapsed”, Judge President Petrus Damaseb warned at the official opening of the High Court for 2007 on Monday. This situation, the Judge President said in remarks that came close to sounding like a eulogy for the criminal review system, was resulting in a very serious violation of the rights of those people for whose benefit the system was created.The Judge President’s remarks followed less than four months after one of his colleagues on the High Court bench, Judge Louis Muller, warned in a review judgement that long delays in sending criminal cases on review to the High Court were rendering the review system meaningless and only placed an unnecessary extra burden of work on Judges.He commented that this happened because by the time cases arrived from Magistrate’s Courts to be reviewed by the High Court, more often than not it was so long after the matters had been finalised in the lower court that those convicted had already completed serving their sentences – often undeservedly, it has been found in the High Court.In terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, cases involving unrepresented accused people convicted and sentenced to fines or prison terms exceeding certain limits – these limits depend on the number of years of experience that the presiding Magistrate has as a judicial officer – must be sent on review to the High Court within seven days after the case had been finalised in the lower court.The purpose of this system, Judge President Damaseb said at the opening of the court year, is “to enable a Judge of the High Court to review certain cases from Magistrate’s Courts as soon as an accused has been found guilty and sentenced so as to certify whether or not it was in accordance with justice”.However, only very rarely, if ever, was this time limit adhered to in Namibia.”The reviews, almost without exception, reach the High Court very late and reasons, when asked for, are always answered late; in many cases after the person had served the prison term imposed by the Magistrate, thus rendering the review process largely academic,” the Judge President said.In past review judgements a variety of factors were blamed for delays in getting cases sent to the High Court on review: from Magistrates’ negligence in ensuring that cases were sent to the High Court, to long waits for trial records to be typed by the company holding the contract to transcribe court records in Namibia.With some concerted effort, a solution to this problem should be attainable, though, the Judge President indicated on Monday.”It appears the failures in the system are attributable to administrative problems resulting in people’s rights being infringed upon,” he said.”This matter requires very urgent attention and action because the system has all but collapsed, resulting in a very serious infraction on the rights of those for whose benefit it was created.”This situation, the Judge President said in remarks that came close to sounding like a eulogy for the criminal review system, was resulting in a very serious violation of the rights of those people for whose benefit the system was created.The Judge President’s remarks followed less than four months after one of his colleagues on the High Court bench, Judge Louis Muller, warned in a review judgement that long delays in sending criminal cases on review to the High Court were rendering the review system meaningless and only placed an unnecessary extra burden of work on Judges.He commented that this happened because by the time cases arrived from Magistrate’s Courts to be reviewed by the High Court, more often than not it was so long after the matters had been finalised in the lower court that those convicted had already completed serving their sentences – often undeservedly, it has been found in the High Court.In terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, cases involving unrepresented accused people convicted and sentenced to fines or prison terms exceeding certain limits – these limits depend on the number of years of experience that the presiding Magistrate has as a judicial officer – must be sent on review to the High Court within seven days after the case had been finalised in the lower court.The purpose of this system, Judge President Damaseb said at the opening of the court year, is “to enable a Judge of the High Court to review certain cases from Magistrate’s Courts as soon as an accused has been found guilty and sentenced so as to certify whether or not it was in accordance with justice”.However, only very rarely, if ever, was this time limit adhered to in Namibia.”The reviews, almost without exception, reach the High Court very late and reasons, when asked for, are always answered late; in many cases after the person had served the prison term imposed by the Magistrate, thus rendering the review process largely academic,” the Judge President said.In past review judgements a variety of factors were blamed for delays in getting cases sent to the High Court on review: from Magistrates’ negligence in ensuring that cases were sent to the High Court, to long waits for trial records to be typed by the company holding the contract to transcribe court records in Namibia.With some concerted effort, a solution to this problem should be attainable, though, the Judge President indicated on Monday.”It appears the failures in the system are attributable to administrative problems resulting in people’s rights being infringed upon,” he said.”This matter requires very urgent attention and action because the system has all but collapsed, resulting in a very serious infraction on the rights of those for whose benefit it was created.”