EVERY case that commences in the Magistrates’ Courts follows a certain procedure, as far as is understood.

There has to be a complaint made to the relevant authorities, investigations carried out, and once satisfied that an offence had indeed been committed, charges are laid. Of crucial importance in such matters, are the written statements from all the principals, essentially broken down into those from the virtual complainant and supporting witnesses if any; and from the accused, and also witnesses.

Sometimes, there are only the individual statements from the two parties, which from a layman’s view, makes the process easier for adjudication. Also, vital to every court trial, are the written statements, given by all parties, and which will be referred to for corroboration. Remove any of them, particularly those that are vital to establishing the case against the accused, and the case is likely to be dismissed, with the latter going free.
This scenario is well known in the local court system — though intermittently — as evidenced by the instances of documents reportedly missing from case files. It was recently highlighted when a charge of death by dangerous driving made against an attorney-at-law had to be dismissed, because of a missing statement from the State’s file. Objectively, this case is as much about who was on trial, as against the missing page, as far as society’s perception goes; it would seem that citizens of certain professions, irrespective of offence, always manage to escape the sanction of the law.

And even though it is coincidental that the vital missing page happened to have been related to the case, the mere fact that it did, only helped to solidify the public’s traditional mindset. But, we ought to focus on an occurrence that should have no place in the criminal justice system, as it serves to defeat all the preparatory work that usually entails the bringing of cases to court.

In simple terms, documents that are reported missing from any case file can only be removed as part of a concerted attempt to influence a certain outcome of a trial. It is a practice that is unfair to the trial process, and serves only to undermine the true intent of the justice system – the sanctioning of the guilty party.

We are cognisant of the many efforts that are being made to modernise our criminal justice system for a better quality of service; however, those that are responsible for manning its sensitive operations must understand what the seriousness and importance of their daily functions mean to a system that affects the lives of citizens. Their moral rectitude has to be above board at all times and must not in anyway, lend toward acts that will impugn the quality of justice offered.

Also, they must be reminded that acts of impropriety serve only to undermine society’s confidence in the system of justice, which must be seen to work for all, regardless of status and class.