WHAT IS IT…

An independent examination of registers and case files by court in line with basic performance indicators, accompanied by a physical verification of all files, to ascertain:

  1. the accuracy of case data provided to the apex Court; and

  2. efficiency of the system of case management in place.

To provide:

  1. a detailed issue map of causes of delay in case disposal and case backlogs; and

  2. a set of 'off-ramps' within the existing laws and procedures at each stage of the justice process (starting at police) to filter and clear cases, framed as

  3. a series of practicable Case Management Orders (CMOs) addressed to police, prosecutors and judges/magistrates to reduce the caseload.

WHY DO YOU NEED IT?

Courts are congested in many countries causing high case backlogs with long delays in case disposals often taking years. Causes usually go beyond a shortage of capacity (i.e.: number of courts, or judges) and point to systemic problems (for instance, inefficient case management; inadequate use of diversion by police). Solutions often include measures to divert disputants/offenders before the matter comes to a court.

WHO IS IT AIMED AT?

  • Supreme or Apex Court (to provide an opinion whether, based on the inspection, data on cases reported up the chain are accurate and management of files meets basic performance indicators (efficiency, effectiveness etc)).

  • Justice institutions (police, prosecution, legal aid as well as courts: to offer language for directives, guidelines and practise directions in the form of Case Management Orders to alleviate the current situation and ensure performance indicators are met in the future).

  • Court Users (to speed up case disposal in the lower courts).

HOW DOES IT WORK?

Six steps over 3 months:
Step 1. Planning (location, consents, workplan)
Step 2. Verifying (physical count - all cases, all courts - identifying case categorisation and system of case management)
Step 3. Inspecting (sample files inspected by case type and level of court)
Step 4. Collecting (data collected in data collection instruments)
Step 5. Analysing (data findings, causes of case congestion and identification of off-ramps taking cases out of the system)
Step 6. Designing (Case Management Orders: immediate action that can be taken by the institutions to reduce pressure on courts)

WHY DOES IT WORK?

  • It is problem-solving.

  • The physical verification of case files + interviews of court administrators clarify case management.

  • The inspection of sample case types identify causes of slow pace of case disposal: enable judiciary / court administrators to break down the problem and organise 'bite-size' groupings of cases to be prioritised.

  • Case Management Orders across the justice system provide direction on case filtering and case clearing within the provisions of the existing law.

WHERE HAS IT BEEN APPLIED?

Bangladesh (two courts: Narsingdi and Cumilla), 2022

SELECTED INSIGHTS

  • A typical court (2000 caseload) would take over 5 years to clear the pending caseload assuming no adjournments and continuous trials.

  • Courts 'locked in' to a path dependent outcome of adjourning cases rather than disposing of them. Court clerks shuffle cases to the next hearing date.

  • Criminal Procedure Code 1898 (+ Evidence Act 1872, Penal Code 1860) enacted when West Bengal (Bangladesh) had less than 25 million vs today's population over 165 million: inadequate procedures to filter cases in and clear cases out

  • Police supported by lawyers and their touts overload charge sheets with both accused persons and charges (simple hurt or fighting regularly includes additional charge of attempted murder) ending in acquittal in courts in 99% cases. Public prosecutors do not review cases for likelihood of conviction.

GENDER PERSPECTIVES

Nari O Shishu tribunals (dealing with the prevention of crimes against women and children) in two court centres:

  1. 20% cases in Narsingdi and 27% cases in Cumilla pending more than 5 years.

  2. 0 convictions (0/553 cases) in one court; 2 convictions (2/1491 cases)in another court (supporting the findings of the Justice Audit).

 GOVERNANCE IMPLICATIONS

Absence of early review / case filtering mechanisms results in most cases being listed for trial. 

Further information:

The Governance and Justice Group (GJG): Adam Stapleton (astapleton@governancejustice.org)

Justice Mapping: Eric Cadora (ecadora@justicemapping.org)