Dear Editor,
After spending the entire morning of Friday, May 31, 2013 in the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court to offer some testimony in a personal matter before the Court, I observed a particularly troubling practice related solely to the procedural management of evidentiary recording that I wish to briefly highlight and expound upon. Before so doing, I wish to make clear that this criticism is not directed toward any particular individual or group thereof connected to that Court, but rather, is specially intended to militate in furtherance of improving the administration and hence, the quality of justice for all of our Guyanese brothers and sisters.
Courts and the Magistrates who regulate and administer such should at all times seek to judiciously resolve legal disputes in a timely and prompt manner, keenly emphasizing the promotion of efficiency and expediency to all subordinate court officials, thereby allowing for a more rapid and smooth flow of a Court’s caseload. I have not brilliantly invented this concept; this is a straightforward, commonsensical public policy that anyone casually familiar with the legal process ought to know.
Magistrates should not, contrary to what I observed, be burdened with the task of having to manually record testimony and other evidentiary offerings by handwriting such, as it undoubtedly interrupts, impedes and may even dispel with the free-flowing nature that is inherently associated with the ability to convey ideas, perceptions and sensations by a testifying witness or an attorney presenting her case. How can a witness effectively recount and express the facts to which their testimony relates if the Magistrate needs 25 seconds to record each 15 words spoken? How can an attorney zealously represent her client, including the invoking of emotion often required to do so within the parameters of the law, if she is forced to pause and/or repeat herself constantly to the Magistrate? While a single or even a few instances of this practice may not be a cause for concern, the most troubling aspect here is felt on an aggregate basis—imagine how many more cases could have been heard and resolved if a Magistrate did not have to handwrite the testimony of 100 witnesses. What about 1000 witnesses? It is no wonder why our Courts’ dockets are overflowing with matters that have gone unresolved for several years.
Aside from this, there are also justifiable concerns regarding the accuracy, preservation, interpretability and reproducibility of a Magistrate’s handwritten record of testimony and other evidentiary offerings. Did the Magistrate mishear or otherwise err? Have the contents of the record been confirmed by an independent court official? What happens to lost or damaged records? Is the Magistrate’s handwriting legible enough to be read by most? How effective will the review of cases be in the event of an appeal? The point is that there are a multitude of legitimate questions that can be raised with regards to handwritten records.
Magistrates already have enough on their proverbial plates in having to play the gatekeeping role of preserving and maintaining order, civility, and peace as well as having to remain impartial and unbiased in rendering their judgments and findings of fact and law. To be fair, it must be noted that our honorable Magistrates are making sincere, good-faith efforts to effectively fulfil their judicial functions and obligations. However, there are some wrinkles in the procedural management process which must be neatly ironed out so as to improve the overall efficiency and expediency in the administration of justice.
With all that is already expected of Magistrates to dispense justice, it is unfair, even illogical, to have them assume the tedious, painstaking task of evidentiary recording—this is a function better suited for court reporters, transcriptionists, and stenographers, who traditionally serve the role of recording and memorializing testimony, arguments offered and words uttered by the Magistrate. As such, we must begin to carefully carve a new role in our judiciary in the area of court reporting so as to alleviate the many responsibilities of our Magistrates, which will ultimately serve the best interests of our nation’s administration of justice, through expediency and efficiency.
I understand that Guyana is a developing nation with limited monetary and human resources, however to fully and truly modernize Guyana’s administration of justice; substantial efforts must be undertaken to catch-up to the modern world, whose continual advances in technology have set the standard for the expedient and efficient resolution of judicial proceedings.
Yours faithfully,
Cheddi B. Jagan II, Esq.
