The legal maxim, ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’, is attributed to William Gladstone, Britain’s Victorian statesman and Prime Minister of the late 1800s.
What Gladstone would have thought of the current situation of the courts system of England and Wales is a matter of guesswork but its current backlog of 80,000 cases in the Crown Court and 400,000 in the Magistrates’ Court should play on the minds of anyone who understands that the ‘rule of law’ is a bastion of democracy itself. With some cases not due to be heard until 2030, victims are left in limbo waiting for justice, defendants experience untoward uncertainty, and the general public’s confidence wanes with every new scandal.
I declare an interest, having sat since December 1996 as a Justice of the Peace (voluntary magistrate) in the South West London Commission but, whether as a volunteer or as a professional judge, the intention is to support public well-being by efficient, effective and timely management of cases from charging to sentence because of the impact the process has on victims, perpetrators, and the innocent alike.
This is not the column to offer an analysis of these delays, but it is rarely disputed that underinvestment in technology, buildings and personnel play a role as does the question of whether certain individuals should appear in the court system at all and what is the appropriate tier for the hearing of particular category of cases.
A sharp controversy has arisen over the right to jury trial and proposals to restrict such. Jury trials evolved in England from the ancient Anglo-Saxon oaths and inquest procedures but were formalised under the Norman Kings. Jury trials became an alternative to (religious) trials by ordeal and the right of an individual to have randomly selected group of citizens to agree on the evidence or facts and decide on guilt or innocence was codified as a right in the Magna Carta of the thirteenth century.
Although there were similar tribunals in ancient Greece and Roman, the Torah has no legal concept of jury trial. The Torah, however, is not silent on the organisation and administration of justice as Parashat Yitro records.
Parashat Yitro is best known for including the first version of the Ten Commandments (20:2-14) -the other one being in Deuteronomy 5. Parashat Yitro offers two chapters which inaugurate the process at Mount Sinai whereby Israel’s national identity and spiritual destiny is formed. Israel is described as God’s segulah: treasure (19:5), and what follows is a theophany (a Divine Appearance) whereby, amidst thunder, lightning and clouds, the basis of the (written) contract between God and Israel is revealed.
Parashat Yitro takes its name from that of Moses’s father-in-law, a Midianite priest. According to the Torah, Yitro is impressed by what he has heard about how the God of Israel has delivered the Israelites out of the power of the Pharoah and away from the Land of Egypt (18:1). It is not clear but implied that Jethro may have witnessed the revelation of the Ten Commandments too because, although this would be unchronologically unusual but not unique because the revelation is in the following chapter, Jethro clearly witnesses happenings after the revelation of a legal system.
After an initial polite encounter (18:7), Moses and Yitro eat a meal together, and, after Moses tells of Israel’s liberation, they offer sacrifices to God (18:12). The following day Yitro observes that the people bring all their problems to Moses. He sees that Moses works alone and for the whole day (18:14) and pointedly observes: ‘Lo tov hadavar asher atah oseh’: the thing you are doing is not right (18:17).
Yitro proposes -and Moses accepts (18:24)- that others, trustworthy and capable, must be appointed to share the burden so that Moses can look after his own health, and better serve his people in a judicial capacity and the people can be better served by the judicial system itself (18:23).
This small but fascinating example demonstrates the later capacity of Jews and Judaism to learn from, and be impacted by the people with whom and the environment in which they lived.
In Mishnah Pirke Avot 4:1 Ben Zoma asks and responds: ‘Who is wise? One who learns from all people’.
The problems of the British judicial system are, I suspect, not unique and perhaps the current Justice Secretary might explore how other jurisdictions are dealing with this challenge of 21st century of public resource and, thereby, regain the trust of the British public in the vital moral question: how to ensure that victims are not further traumatised, the innocent are not penalised and the guilty receive appropriate punishment
In so doing the Deuteronomic principle (16:20) of ‘Tzedek, Tzedek tirdof: justice, justice shall you pursue’, emphasising that a properly functioning legal system is the basis of a just and equitable society.