PROBLEMS CONCERNING PROSECUTION AND COURT PROCEEDINGS SUMMARY REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR (FROM UNAFEI - REPORT FOR 1977 AND RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO 15, 1978 - SEE NCJ-58438)

• NCJ Number: 58450
• Author(s): B M LIM
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 7 pages
• Corporate Author: United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders
• Publication Format: Document
• Language: English
• Country: Japan

Annotation

COURT DELAYS IN SRI LANKA, THAILAND, BURMA, JAPAN, AND THE PHILIPPINES ARE ADDRESSED IN THIS SUMMARY REPORT OF SIX PAPERS AND THE RESULTANT DISCUSSION WHICH FOCUSES ON PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF THE SYSTEM.

Abstract

PRESENTATIONS WERE MADE BY A BURMESE LAW OFFICER, A THAI SECRETARY TO A COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE, A PHILIPPINE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, TWO JAPANESE ASSISTANT JUDGES, A DISTRICT JUDGE AND MAGISTRATE BOTH FROM SRI LANKA. IN THE DISCUSSION PERIOD, IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT SRI LANKA SHOULD EXPAND THE SCOPE OF THE BOARDS' ACTIVITIES TO INCLUDE MINOR CRIMES SUCH AS PETTY THEFT AND MISDEMEANORS. THE GROUP AGREED THAT THE BOARDS SHOULD BE COMPOSED OF COMPETENT AND NON-PARTISAN CIVIL OFFICIALS. ONE OF THE LENGTHIEST COURT PROCEDURES IN THAILAND CONCERNS THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW REQUIREMENT THAT JUDGES WRITE DOWN, IN THEIR OWN HANDWRITING, EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY WITNESSES BEFORE THE ACCUSED. THE GROUP POINTED TO THE PRACTICES OF OTHER COUNTRIES IN WHICH TESTIMONY IS TAKEN DOWN BY COURT CLERKS OR STENOGRAPHERS. BURMA FACES A PROBLEM OF PROLONGED DETENTION OF THE ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS CAN NOT BE RELEASED ON BAIL. SPECIFIC PROPOSALS WERE ADVANCED TO DEAL WITH DELAYS CAUSED BY THE FAILURE OF WITNESSES OR DEFENSE COUNSELS TO APPEAR. PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCEDURE OF ALLOWING APPEALS TO BE MADE DIRECTLY TO THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE WAS DISCUSSED AND POSSIBLE REMEDIES WERE ADVANCED. THIS APPEAL PROCEDURE SEEMED TO BE UNIQUE TO THE PHILIPPINES. WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT MOST JAPANESE CRIMINAL CASES ARE DISPOSED OF WITHIN SIX MONTHS TO ONE YEAR, ATTENTION WAS FOCUSED ON EIGHT REASONS WHY SOME CASES HAVE DRAGGED ON FOR AS LONG AS 12 YEARS. SPECIFIC REMEDIES WERE EXAMINED. IT WAS ARGUED THAT INSUFFICIENT MANPOWER AND FACILITIES WERE PARTLY TO BLAME FOR TRIAL DELAYS, BUT THAT THE MAJOR REASON WAS INAPPROPRIATE USE OF COURT POWER TO CONTROL THE PROCEEDINGS. ATTENTION WAS ALSO ADDRESSED TO JAPANESE TRIAL DELAYS CREATED BY DEFENSE COUNSELS AND DEFENDANTS. THE GROUP ALSO DISCUSSED DIFFICULTIES IN FIXING TRIAL DATES, REGULATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES BY INVOLVED PARTIES, AND DISPOSITION OF TRIAL PROCEDURE MOTIONS. NO REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (KCP).