Laying down the law for the judiciary

By Shaila Koshy (The Star)

The judiciary has put in place a number of measures to improve the administration of justice. Will it succeed?

FROM 1994 to March this year, if you had asked which was the worst High Court and High Court Registry, the answer would have come thundering back, “SHAH ALAM!”

But in just one and a half months it has metamorphosed from the worst to among the best.

After getting complaints that files could not be found, staff could be paid to “lose” or “hide” files and the delay in the disposal of cases, Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi (CJ) and Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Arifin Zakaria (CJM) paid a visit to the infamous file room in October 2008.

It was then that the secret to the “missing files” and “delays in extracting orders” was revealed: files were “stored” higgledy-piggledy; tops of filing cabinets and the floor became convenient “shelves” to stack them, while the file shelves peculiarly stayed empty.

But all this was gone by May 1.

From March 16 to April 30, the Shah Alam High Court registry was reorganised under the leadership of its deputy registrar Arleen Ramly, said Chief Registrar of the Federal Court Hasnah Mohd Hashim.

“She did an excellent job. The Shah Alam High Court registry has been a problem for a long, long time. Slowly, we are trying to change their attitude. The hard core ones will be transferred out.

“The staff worked after office hours and during weekends and 25,000 closed files were sent to the Selayang store, out of the total 45,000 files, leaving only 20,000 files at the Registry,” she said in a recent interview.

Zaki, who was also present, said Arleen had also implemented a simple system to track each file: “Now, with a few clicks of the mouse, the clerk is able to tell where the file should be – in the filing room, with the clerk or with which judge.”

Hasnah said that with the re-organisation, corruption would be reduced or eliminated in so far as “missing” files were concerned.

“If files are systematically organised, it is easier to retrieve them.”

While the court staff worked hard, the High Court judges did their part by digging into their pockets to pay for the lunches and high teas.

The re-organisation had cost hardly anything, unlike the RM69.84mil e-court system that was launched in the New Commercial Courts (NCC) in Kuala Lumpur on Sept 1.

It was pure old-fashioned Volkswagen efficiency compared to the e-court system, which is like the new super efficient Japanese car.

Other courts in the country did not have the same problems as Shah Alam, according to Hasnah.

The CJ himself went down to all the courts and found their file rooms were generally well organised, she said.

When asked why it still took between two and three weeks just to extract an order in Penang, she replied: “As soon as we got the complaint, we had a meeting with the Bar Council on Tuesday (Sept 1) afternoon. By noon the next day, managing judge (Federal Court Justice) Datuk James (Foong) was in Penang to check on the situation.

“The problem was attitude!”

The court staff, who come under the Public Service Department, were also reminded of their responsibilities.

“When I started as Chief Registrar on Jan 5, the first thing I did was to issue a show cause letter saying they had to buck up or face disciplinary action,” Hasnah said.

“This is to show that we mean business.”

More improvements

It is timely at this point to take note of Zaki’s prosaic description of the e-court system – “it’s just like using a computer to type. It’s just to assist and make things faster”, which only underscores the importance of having the right people in the administration of justice.

In fact, according to statistics released by another managing judge, Court of Appeal Justice Datuk Raus Sharif, the “old-fashioned” tracking system in the commercial division in KL from Jan 1 to June 30 was able to speed up the judiciary’s efforts to reduce the backlog of cases.

The total cases pending in the commercial division as at Dec 31 was 5,642. But by the end of June, the number had reduced to 2,735.

For full trials especially, the division disposed of 283 cases in the past six months as compared to only 87 for the whole of 2008,” said Raus.

Among other measures, in addition to the setting up of the NCC with specialised and expert judges, is the revamping of the civil procedure rules by Federal Court Justice Datuk Gopal Sri Ram, said Hasnah.

“Justice (Datuk) Zulkefli (Ahmad Makinudin), another Federal Court judge, is leading a team of judicial officers to simplify criminal proceedings relating to the Penal Code, Evidence Act and Criminal Procedure Code.

“A set of proposals has been sent to the Attorney-General’s Chambers and to the Bar for comments.”

Hasnah said postponements are also a big no-no now.

She said the AG’s Chambers had instructed all Federal Counsel and Deputy Public Prosecutors to report to headquarters if a case was postponed, adding that the Bar Council has also passed on general instructions for its members not to request for postponements.

“Subordinate court judges now send daily reports to me, the two Chief Judges and the CJ,” she added.

“If they don’t have reasonable grounds for a postponement, I ask them immediately to explain,” interjected Zaki.

One proposal, however, appears to be a double-edged sword – to increase the number of judges in the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal (COA), High Court as well as more Judicial Commissioners (on two to three contracts) for the High Courts.

The maximum limit allowed under the Federal Constitution for each court has not been met. Currently, there are only 10 judges in the apex court (including the CJ, President of the COA, the CJM and the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak of the maximum of 15) , 21 (32) in the COA, 36 (60) in the High Court of Malaya and six (seven) in the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak.

As for Judicial Commissioners, as at Aug 14, there are 47 serving in the peninsula and four in Sabah and Sarawak.

Having spent almost RM70mil of public money for the e-court system, Zaki pointed out on Sept 1 that if the new system as well as the other measures the court had implemented could mean appointing one less High Court judge next year, he would save the taxpayer between RM60,000 and RM70,000 a month; that’s between RM720,000 and RM840,000 a year.

Based on the Judges’ Remuneration Act, a High Court judge gets a monthly salary of RM17,754.76. The balance comes from the allowances and facilities they are entitled to and the pension they would accrue, said Zaki. (see chart)

A JC, lacking the security of tenure of a High Court judge, draws less. It’s not surprising then that more are going to be appointed shortly.

Lest it be thought that speed is the driving force behind all these measures, Hasnah pointed out that judges must now attend monthly seminars and conferences pertaining to matters that could come before them.

And all the sessions will be held on Saturdays!

Zaki has already asked two High Court judges to leave on their own accord for being inefficient. The public awaits with great interest to see whether all these measures will improve the administration of justice.