Alabama’s new Speedy Trial Act offers an insight into the growing recognition of the several benefits of achieving timeliness.  The  Attorney General’s press release features four goals: (1) Prioritizing violent crime cases; (2) Protecting victims and witnesses; (3) Reducing court backlogs; and (4) Strengthening public trust. Prioritising violent crime cases will hopefully have all four effects.

The right to a timely trial has always been explicitly and somewhat exclusively offered to the defendant. Yet none of the four goals of the legislation are aimed at defendants. Instead, they acknowledge the right of the public, the victims and witnesses, and the courts themselves to a timely trial. “Speedy trials are a constitutional guarantee for a defendant, said Attorney General Marshall, “but no one deserves swift justice more than a crime victim.”

The most obvious remedy for backlogs created by the legislation is a formal process to enable the appointment of special or visiting judges by the Chief Justice. This process is aimed at providing surge capacity and seems well-suited to the demands created by particular events or backlogs. There is a history of this type of appointment in the UK but the concern over judicial independence through the institutionalisation of a tenured judiciary is in tension with temporary appointments. In B.C. some permanent appointments in the past have been identified as having the purpose of reducing backlogs but this requires giving that effort a joint priority that is not always present. 

What would a Speedy Trial Act look like in Canada? The split between the federal appointing power and the provincial responsibility for the administration of justice requires local adaptation. Despite its populist flavour, effective legislative remedies to achieve timely justice deserve consideration.