Undue delay in dealing with civil lawsuits, as with criminal prosecutions, is a blight on any court system.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Delay denies the unfairly injured their right to timely compensation. It draws out a period of uncertainty and anxiety for litigants, muddies the memory of witnesses, and can push up costs and unfairly disadvantage one party.
Justice delayed, as this territory is so acutely aware, is justice denied.
It is therefore of concern that ACT Supreme Court Chief Justice Helen Murrell has warned ACT lawyers that the court's four full-time judges will have almost no time to hear civil cases next year.
In an effort to keep on top of the ACT's notoriously backlogged criminal case list, judges have been told to prioritise criminal and appeal matters in 2015.
The four judges, lawyers were told, could simply not be stretched to deal with civil cases if they were to focus on the criminal backlog throughout the court's 2015 roster.
Delays to civil litigation are an obvious consequence, and powerful law firms who will lose out are expected to turn their anger towards the government.
Efforts by Attorney-General Simon Corbell to cut through the Supreme Court's backlog, including resourcing the 12-week blitz in 2012, are to be commended.
Likewise, the appointment of Chief Justice Murrell has helped to drive efficiency through the Supreme Court since her arrival in October last year.
Indeed, the issue of court delay was highlighted as a priority of the new Chief Justice during her speech at her swearing-in ceremony.
Her sustained efforts since, most notably through the unfortunately named pilot central criminal listing, a rolling series of mini-blitzes, have helped instil a culture of expediency and productivity through the higher court.
Yet, given her missive on civil cases to lawyers last week, she appears resigned to the fact that only so much can be done with four full-time judges.
The court's Master, David Mossop, who traditionally deals with most civil cases, will now be left on his own to handle hearings during the year.
He will not be able to carry the burden.
For his part, the Attorney-General continues to point towards figures contained in the Productivity Commission's Report on Government Services, which show the number of cases lodged per judicial officer is lower in the ACT than most other jurisdictions.
He says more could and should be done with existing resources.
But the interstate comparison, which is dismissed as misleading by the legal fraternity, should not blind the government to the practical realities of the Supreme Court.
It is simply a bad policy that solves one problem only to create a situation equally undesirable.
The appointment of a fifth full-time judge, as much as the government wishes to avoid it, may be the inevitable and most effective answer to the continued problems afflicting the court.