Gordon Robinson | We are not serious

Three Sundays ago ( What the hell the Police can do) I took a swipe at our justice system.

I wrote: “Supreme Court publishes general clearance rates (56 per cent in 2025) but no statistics regarding convictions. How many murder convictions were secured in 2022-2025? We don’t know. The data is unavailable.”

Oopsie. A well placed reader gently took me to task and showed me where murder conviction stats can be found. The reader used Chief Justice’s (CJ’s) quarterly and annual reports posted on Supreme Court’s website so I’ve no problem accepting the reader’s information that, in 2024, the murder conviction rate was 16 per cent; 24 per cent in 2022.

After that brief digital communication, I was left to my own perilously low technological skills to complete the research. I found an annual report by CJ for 2024 which confirmed (page 64): “murder matters recorded an estimated case conviction rate of 16 per cent, a decline of 0.67 percentage points compared to the previous year.”

But, based on the reader’s information, this is a sharp decline from 2022 which, itself, wasn’t impressive. If, after full police investigations and D.P.P’s office expertise, we can only convict less than one of four persons accused of murder, we’ve a problem.

At 16 per cent it’s less than one of six charged being convicted! So police and D.P.P. get it wrong 84 per cent of the time? Jeez!

As bad as Trinidad is it recorded a 42 per cent decrease in murders last year and a 20 per cent murder conviction rate. Barbados is worried that all of 50 murders were recorded in 2024 (35 to October 2025). In 2024, in Guyana, where there’s no gang problem, murder rates were significantly down in 2025 and murder conviction rate exceeds 70 per cent.

In our justice system, we’ve difficulty delivering justice in a timely fashion. CJ reported: “301 new cases filed in 2024 while 169 cases were disposed…an estimated case clearance rate of 56.15 per cent, a marginal increase of 2.72 percent [over 2023] . The leading [Home Circuit Court] charges heard in 2024 include murder, rape and sexual intercourse with a person under 16…..”

So, in 2024 we added 132 new cases to the existing backlog. Murder conviction rate was only 16 per cent. Elementary math tells me that, with 169 cases disposed of and 16 per cent murder conviction rate then, even if EVERY case disposed of was by way of a murder conviction, we achieved only 27 murder convictions. But “disposed-of” cases include rape, other sexual offences etc AND disposal by way of no evidence offered, persons found not guilty and guilty pleas including to lesser offences. So imagine how many murder convictions were actually achieved.

Please remember, the police killed 189 in 2024 (up 22 per cent) while murders declined by 259 (down 19 per cent).

Folks, we’ve a real life dilemma to face. The justice system isn’t making any significant contribution to a murder rate decrease. Police, whose methods are at least constitutionally suspect, if not outright as murderous as persons allegedly unsuccessfully “challenging” them, have positively affected Jamaica’s murder rate.

How do we feel about that? What, if anything, would you prefer was done differently? Because, if you can’t come up with an effective alternative, well intentioned, well founded critique based on human rights issues will be drowned out by the decibel level of falling murder rate narratives. Unless you identify solutions, not just problems, you’ll be like a tree that falls in an unpopulated forest. Nobody hears. Did it fall? Did you make a point?

The most distressing statistic in CJ’s report was about adjournments. Our justice system is an old cliché “justice delayed is justice denied”. CJ’s report Table 30.0 records that, from a sample size of 2,151 adjournments (not the total adjournments for 2024) leading causes were defense counsel absent (205); defense and prosecution wanted to talk (210). Why not talk BEFORE the hearing? Also featured: disclosure not yet made (141); Crown needed “to take instructions” (136). On what? From whom?

We. Are. Not. Serious!

One-hundred-and-thirty-six more were adjourned because the investigating officer didn’t attend court.

I told the reader, as I wrote three Sundays ago, that this sort of lazy, irresponsible approach to justice doesn’t occur in the garrison where justice delivery is swift and sure. Whether we like it or not this parallel justice system is our market place competitor. If we don’t get real; if lawyers don’t stop treating hearing dates like creative exercises in delaying tactics instead of prescribed working hours; if Judges don’t stop bending over to accommodate adjournment requests for disrespectful, poppy-show reasons; we’ll always lose to the competition. We’re facilitating increased crime; work for under-resourced police; and courts operating like treacle trekking uphill.

Don’t think things are any better on the civil side – a world I once inhabited daily but only infrequently these days. Why? I’ll give two recent examples.

Trial of a claim filed in 2015 was adjourned during the pandemic to September 2025. At trial the Claimant’s sole witness was absent because he “has had a death in his family and has to be out of the country”. Counsel, who was transparent with the Court, was unable to present any documentary corroboration of this nebulous offering. The trial was adjourned to mid-2026. In another matter, a Judge, who has shown admirable acuity, temperament and work ethic, was unable to proceed with a matter because the Registry lost a Judge’s Bundle filed by one of the lawyers six days before the hearing.

We. Are. Not. Serious!

I detest adjournments. In my long, undistinguished career I can count on one hand, with digits to spare, the number of times I’ve asked for adjournment.

After pleadings close it takes months for Case Management to be fixed. Don’t get me started on Requests for Default Judgments - a simple administrative task capable of accomplishment in minutes. It often takes months for these judgments to be entered. I know of one outstanding for over a year! In another case a query months after filing a request was met with “it’s waiting to be signed”.

We. Are. Not. Serious!

CJ’s report recorded 14,984 Civil Division adjournments in 2024. Of an 11,503 sample size, the most (2,846) were due to Claimants not filing documents. Claimants? But it’s THEIR case. Next on the list (1,006): “parties having discussions”.

Really? Seriously? On the civil side there’s an efficient and effective Mediation Process available in almost every suit. At Case Management, after contested applications are resolved, the parties are offered the option of mediation. Some of my seemingly most intractable cases have been settled at mediation. Once you’ve a good mediator and lawyers willing to act as advisors rather than trial advocates there’s an excellent chance the matter ends there.

Why are hearing dates adjourned because parties want to talk? In the good old days, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, if something came up just before hearing/trial that truly merited discussion the judge gave us a short time to talk and return for hearing/trial if nothing was resolved.

Adjournment? Schmadjournment!

Other leading reasons for adjournments in civil cases included Defendant yet to file documents (836); Claimant’s documents not served or short served (795); Claimant to comply with comments from NEPA (783); no parties appearing (665). As CJ concluded:

“Similar to previous reports, it is evident that a significant proportion of total adjournments were due to factors related to lack of readiness or preparedness of case files and cases themselves and absenteeism of parties and attorneys for court hearings.”

We. Are. Not. Serious!

There has been endless yapping in media about jury versus judge alone trials. Let me be clear.

I. Don’t. Care!

First, I want a trial. I want a trial within two years of a Claim being filed and a year of indictment of a single defendant. I want police investigations to be concluded BEFORE charges are laid not while accused citizens are cooling their heels in custody attending copious “mention” dates waiting for the Prosecution’s “file to be completed.” When we make that dream come true, then talk to me about who presides and who decides at the trial.

Until then, I ask all lawyers, especially those most familiar with media microphones, to look in the mirror instead of the camera; support CJ’s refreshing determination to reform; reduce your own contributions to delays; stop counting trees; and take an objective look at the deforestation that has befallen Jamaican justice.

Peace and Love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com