The National Assembly recently considered and passed the Time Limit for Judicial Decisions Bill which provides that a judge in a civil case shall give a decision as soon as possible after the conclusion of a case but in any event not later than one hundred and twenty days. The Full Court or the Court of Appeal is required to give its decision not later than thirty days after the hearing. Our contribution to the debate cited the existence of similar legislation in India.

This legislation has been long awaited. It was first discussed during the constitution reform process and the possibility was recognised in the report of the commission in 2000.The Bill is very much welcome as vital and to the due administration of justice by ensuring that decisions are rendered in a timely matter.

The Constitution of Guyana, and many others in the world, provides that citizens are entitled to a fair trial within reasonable time for both criminal and civil matters. A trial is not concluded until a decision is given. An inordinate delay in giving a decision, therefore, is a violation of the right of the citizen to a fair trial within a reasonable time.

In criminal cases in the Magistrate’s Court, the magistrate is required to give his/her decision in six weeks. In the High Court juries must given their decisions upon the conclusion of the trial and consideration of the evidence.

There were no rules for civil matters in the High Court. O ver the years many, though not all, judges reserved their decisions, and in many cases took years to give their decisions. In such cases it was hard to deny that justice was not accorded to these litigants. Many emigrated. Some died. Others lived with the deprivation of their rights about which they sought redress for all the years while awaiting decision. As is said, justice delayed is justice denied.

The legislation carries with the ultimate sanction of the removal of the judge who persistently fail to give a decision within the time limit. There has been some criticism of this provision but the issue was considered so important by the constitution reform commission that it recommended the removal of a judge for such failure. The National Assembly supported this sanction and in so doing agreed that a sanction of such magnitude is necessary to ensure compliance. Indeed, the instances of delay had become notorious.

The Bill makes allowance for instances where a judge required additional time to give a decision. It provides that a judge may apply to the Chancellor for additional time to give a decision where s/he has legitimate reasons for the delay.

The judiciary is now in the process of significant reform. This Bill is part and parcel of the process of reform and will add to the many measures which are being implemented at this time. It is hoped that out of all of this the judiciary will return to its halcyon days of a leader of Caribbean jurisprudence.