“Broken Criminal Justice System Denying Prisoners Their Rights.” This was the front page headline of the May 28, 2010 and the article carried the comments of Her Honour Madame Justice Roxanne George whilst she was presiding at the gaol delivery at the Supreme Court. At the end of every Criminal Session the Director of Prisons and or usually the Officer in charge of the Georgetown Prisons would inform a judge who had been presiding at the criminal assizes how many prisoners are awaiting trial either at the assizes or in the magistrates courts and also those prisoners who are awaiting their appeals to be heard.
Justice George made the following points— (a) Citizens cannot continue to languish in prison for years, (b )The system needs to be fixed as prisoners are waiting too long for their trials to commence, (c) One prisoner had been incarcerated since 2003 and his matter was not yet completed, (d) That in a democratic society human rights are to be respected. People simply cannot be put away for a considerable period of time without being afforded the right to a hearing, (e) There was a break-down between the High Court and the chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions, (f) The gaol delivery is meant to hold the criminal justice system accountable so that prisoners do not fall off the radar.
I endorse the statements and sentiments made by Justice George and commend her for high-lighting the plight of the prisoners who are being denied a fair trial within a reasonable time as is enshrined in Article 144(1) of the Constitution of the Co-Operative Republic of Guyana. Our judges are the protectors of the rights of each citizen of Guyana and I would like to urge all our judges not to be fearful when they embark to protect the constitutional and human rights of all the inhabitants of Guyana. When necessary they must speak out, like Justice George, in matters before them and in this way the man in the street would know and feel heartened and reassured that justice is there for their protection.
Justice George knows what she is speaking about as she had been at one time the head of the Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions and as a judge, had adjudicated in criminal matters at the assizes and those constitutional matters where prisoners and citizens complain of the breach of their constitutional rights. She has seen  at first hand how slowly the wheels of justice turns and heard at times the flimsy excuses being pro-offered as to why matters cannot be proceeded with. She has seen where cases are not being called for trial as the witnesses died or cannot be located either because they had emigrated, or are some-where in the interior or lost all interest in the matter, police officers have retired and cannot be found or just do not wish to give the evidence, exhibits cannot be found as they were not kept safely or stolen. She has heard from police officers that efforts were made to contact witnesses without success or that they could not be found and as such an application was made for the matter to be postponed and or to be put  over to another assizes. However at times when an investigation was done it was discovered that no proper effort was ever made to contact the witness.
A few days after Justice George made her statement Attorney-General Charles Ramson entered the fray and tried to deflect the valid criticism of Justice George. Ramson made the following points—(a) An unaccountable judiciary with a poor work ethic is a critical factor plaguing the criminal justice system, (b) That a few simple interventions can be made to start fixing the system, (c) That there should be monitoring and public disclosure of a judge’s performance, (d) A  more pro-active Judicial Service Commission in making judges accountable, (e) A closer collaboration between the Guyana Police Force and the Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions particularly to ensuring the availability of witnesses.
I do agree that the Judicial Service Commission needs to be more proactive. It had been and is still within the power of the JSC to monitor and discipline judges. They have over the years failed to do this effectively and as a result judges have been allowed to drag on cases for years and to retire without completing them and or writing their judgements after retiring. As a result those matters have to be commenced all over which would necessitate further delays, waste of judicial time, expense and  on many occasions the witnesses either have emigrated, cannot be found or had died and in quite a few matters counsel for one party or another had died.  This has caused injustice from time to time and no member of the JSC can say that he is unaware of these factors. But what have they done? Nothing satisfactory!
Legislation has now been passed by which judges have to write their decisions within one hundred an twenty days after the case closes but if there is an appeal, there is no time limit as to how soon the appeal should be dealt with. I wish to return to the JSC and it is my humble view that Mr. Bryn Pollard S.C. and Mr. Prem Persaud, retired judge of the Guyana Court of Appeal, both of whom are members of the JSC, should step down. They have been there too long and from information received, they seem to blindly follow the dictates of who-so-ever is the current Chancellor. They must take the blame to a great extent for judges not being taken to task and as they are not there by virtue of any office, they should step down. I wish to say that I have the greatest of respect for both gentlemen as they have served the legal profession and the judiciary with distinction but it is time to give others a chance to make a contribution. So I agree with the Attorney-General that the JSC should be more proactive. But to whom are they accountable and do they give any account?
An immediate remedy to get rid of the massive back-log of cases in the High Court is the appointment of more judges and part time judges to the High Court. The normal complement over the years has been the chief justice with ten judges. We now have for some time the chief justice with eight judges.  One of these judges sits in the commercial court alone. This court started with two judges and for about two years now Justice Rishi Persaud has been heading this court. He has been doing an excellent job but need another judge in order to move the work to what was anticipated.
Two judges from the above complement sit in Berbice ( one in the civil jurisdiction and the other  in the criminal jurisdiction), another judge sits in Essequibo and thus we only have four other judges with the chief justice to sit in Georgetown and from this complement of five, two would be at the criminal assizes. Thus in reality we only, at this point of time, have three judges which include the chief justice to do all the civil work. This is not good enough as the chief justice who is doing an excellent job, also has administrative duties. When a judge goes on holiday you can see how the problem is further compounded.
According to the Attorney-General our judges have a poor work ethic. I do believe that that comment is unfair to the judges as they are working in conditions that are unbecoming of their positions. Some of them do not have a working phone in their chambers; most of them have to share their small office with their registrar and filing cabinets. None of the judges are given any time to do research and to write their judgements.  The wash room facilities that they have need a great deal of improvement and they are not really private. Blackouts hit the High Court regularly and there is no working generator.  As a result work is sometimes stopped as the lighting in some of the judges chamber becomes poor and both the chambers and court room gets hot and stuffy. Further there is a regular change of staff as with the low salary many of the staff of the Supreme
Court always look for greener pastures. The question I would wish to ask the Attorney-General is, are these conditions acceptable and how is his facilities as compared to the judges? There is much that the Attorney-General and the government can do, to make the working environment of judges and the staff of the Supreme Court comfortable and with this; you will get a better work performance.
The Minister of Home Affairs needs to do more and insist with the Commissioner of Police that all the support that is available is given so that trials can commence promptly. Every day prisoners are taken after 9 a.m. to court and the Ministry of Home Affairs need to acquire more vehicles to transport prisoners to Court. Police officers who fail to do their work diligently and cause unnecessary delay in having trials commencing must be disciplined and or removed from the Force.  I would like to commend the Director of Prison and his officers as they have had to cope over the years with the over-crowding at the Georgetown Prison.
There is a need for there to be a greater appreciation of the role and importance of the judiciary. The judiciary is that organ in a country that protects citizens and to where persons can go in order to resolve their conflicts. It is the organ which should be independent and perceived to be fair and just. Where these tributes of the judiciary abound, persons would feel comfortable and would not take the law into their own hands. Moreso, when they are unsuccessful in Court, they would not feel any outrage of injustice.
I, therefore, call upon the President to ensure that all reasonable resources be provided to the judiciary and not wait for foreign funding. It is the responsibility of the Attorney-General, Minister of Home Affairs, Commissioner of Police and the Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions to ensure that there is co-operation and collaboration so that the work of the judiciary is not impeded. Judges need to be strong and do their work in an efficient way. Delays should not be easily given and judges should expect to be criticized reasonably when they fall short of the standard that is expected of them. Judges please continue to speak out whenever you see injustice as silence would breed contempt to the judiciary. Democracy will flourish when there is a strong and independent judiciary.