Timeliness is integral to justice. Despite the necessary and ongoing debate about the ends of justice, there is common agreement that justice requires practical expression. Disraeli’s helpful definition of justice as truth in action includes an element of delivery.
Timeliness Is Integral To Justice.
Although Gladstone’s observation that “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied” was made in the 19th century, it echoed observations about the problem of delay as old as the pursuit of justice itself. Less commonly noted is the maxim that “justice hurried is justice buried”. Particularly in the history of criminal process, there are many examples of swift – and unjust – criminal convictions.
Timeliness is therefore not just about avoiding delay, although that should be treated as a necessity. Timeliness is also not about securing a swift result without regard to the shortcomings rigid systems can create.
Timely justice is about delivering a just result that arrives in time. The measure of what constitutes arriving in time requires careful thought, measurement and responsiveness. This is because there is no single answer to the problem. Indeed, there is no single, unitary problem since the goals of timeliness are different from one type of case to another and can differ even within the life of one dispute. A casual reflection will recognise the different causes, effects and possible measures to achieve timeliness in family, administrative or commercial cases.
The problems of delay have long been recognized and various efforts have been made to reduce delays. Those efforts have included heroic measures as well as more general reforms. And yet there remains a general unhappiness with cultures of delay and a perception of a tidal pattern which suggests an organic process of rising — and falling — in the delays which afflict justice. That unhappiness has been sharpened and deepened as we see progress made in other spheres of life and similar failures of justice around the world are more broadly available in the age of social media.
Given these challenges and the many failed or fleeting attempts to achieve timeliness is there reason for optimism? Why this website?
Despite widespread recognition of the necessity of timeliness and the pernicious effects of delay, there are few champions for timely justice. One obvious explanation is that legal history discloses that many improvements have proven temporary. As a result, the problem seems embedded and resilient to enduring relief. Indeed, as noted by Spigelman C.J., “inefficiencies in the administration of justice in common law countries are not unintentional.” The barriers to timely justice can be the by-product of substantive and procedural choices aimed at securing justice itself.
There are good reasons to be optimistic for the prospect of enduring improvements, however:
- The transparency of the global village has ensured the experiences of communities and parties denied timely justice are not easily overlooked or ignored;
- Modern information technology and systems have made available new and better tools;
- Innovative approaches aimed at achieving just outcomes offer broader choice for those seeking justice, resulting in new incentives and competition for timely performance.
Timely Justice aims to provide an independent forum that will provide insights into the nature of the problem, a clearing-house for information, and a public square for debating proposals and assessing initiatives. It is our conviction that each of these is needed to advance enduring solutions to ensure timeliness:
- Defining the nature of the problem: A better understanding of the sources of delay and what is required to achieve timely justice is badly needed. Despite centuries of complaint little has been written about the nature of the problem.
- A clearing-house for information: There is no place where information respecting timely justice can be shared and made available for comment and learning.
- Proposals to improve timeliness: Over the past several decades there have been many efforts at legal reform, both substantive and procedural. Debating what will and won’t work, or what needs to be tried will hopefully improve the likelihood of enduring success.
