NATIONAL IJS
CASE BACKLOG
REDUCTION STRATEGY
PRESENTATION BY ADV S JIYANE,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: COURT SERVICES
30 JANUARY 2007
1
CONTENT
• Introduction
• Background info
– Court Demographics
– Court Workload
• The current Case Backlog Project
• Appeal Backlogs
• Longer Term Initiatives
2
INTRODUCTION
•
The DoJCD MTSF provides for the reduction of case backlogs
as part of service delivery improvement programme with
other justice partners
•
The DoJCD Leadership Conference of June 2006 placed
emphasis on eliminating case backlogs as a focus area and
resolved to develop an integrated strategy to reduce same.
•
The Leadership Conference and July 2006 Cabinet Lekgotla
gave birth to a focused project to reduce the case backlogs
•
The judiciary & magistracy and other justice partners are
committed to the process and offered support for the
initiative as having equal responsibility to address this
challenge
•
Various efforts are in progress contributing positively on case
backlog reduction premised on integrated implementation of
case flow management as part of the JCPS priorities in the
government Programme of Action.
3
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Court Demographics
•
South Africa comprise of 9 provinces, 366 magisterial districts,
within which there are 751 district court houses, comprising 366
main court seats, 105 branch courts, 51 detached offices and 230
periodical courts, as well as approximately 300 regional courts.
There are also 13 High Court Divisions.
•
In terms of access to court services: counting only main and
branch courts, there is on average one court for every 95 361 of
the population.
•
Furthermore, the country has on average one court per 1 178
square kilometres nationally.
4
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Criminal Court Workload
Out of the 751 lower courts –
– The 14 biggest courts deal with approximately 20% of the
criminal workload of the courts
– 28 courts deal with 30% of the workload of the courts
– 48 courts deal with 40% of the workload of the courts
– 76 courts deal with 50% of the workload of the courts
– 115 courts deal with 60% of the workload of the courts
– 168 courts deal with 70% of the workload of the courts
– 245 courts deal with 80% of the workload of the courts
– 361 courts deal with 90% of the workload of the courts
5
Current Backlog Project
Project Objectives:
•
To achieve a reduction in all case backlogs at the various project sites
and other courts in general and also the appeal backlogs during 2007
•
To ensure that the inflow of new cases are balanced by matters
concluded.
•
To have ensured greater court efficiency and effectiveness, including
alternative methods of dealing with demand, across the greater IJS
value chain.
•
The project is being dealt with as part of the holistic case flow
management process through inter-sectoral engagement with
critical role players including the NPA, Judiciary and Legal Aid
Board (LAB)
6
Project Methodology
Reducing case backlogs
% Reduction during 2006/07
Verification
& Analysis
Stakeholder
Mngmt &
Integration
Resourcing
& Budget
Policy &
Legislation
Monitoring &
Evaluation
Implementation
Communication
Project Reporting
Communication
Risk Management
Issue Escalation
Timeous Issue Resolution
7
CHALLENGES - BACKLOG OF CASES
Factors that contribute to the backlog of cases are:
1.
The high level of non-attendance of court proceedings by accused
(average of 15 155 warrants of arrest per month) .
2.
Incomplete investigations/ lack of forensic analysis capacity causing
unnecessary delays are furthermore detrimental to the backlog of
cases (National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) audit of regional
magistrate and high court cases for 2005, indicate 23% of all such
cases had to be remanded for further investigation)
3.
Not enough court capacity to deal with all the incoming cases (lack of
sufficient numbers of judges, magistrates and prosecutors )
4.
The availability of legal representation on trial dates remains a
challenge. (The NPA audit mentioned above found that 7% of the
postponements were to get legal representation.)
8
Addressing Case Backlogs
1.
Under Case Flow Management (CFM), holistic case backlog management
is dealt with as a strategic intervention. To deal with this the following is
being done:
•
•
•
•
Intersectoral engagement with critical role players including the NPA, judiciary
and Legal Aid Board (LAB)
The National Case Flow Management Committee (which resorts under the
JCPS Development Committee) meets monthly
CFM Performance & Planning Framework
CFM Guidelines implemented and enforced
2.
The e-Scheduler, a case management system, providing case
management information to enhance case planning and scheduling is
being rolled out to all district courts by the end of this financial year.
3.
Creation of more capacity in the various criminal justice system
departments has enabled the courts to deal more effectively with the
workload.
•
More magistrates’ posts were also created.
•
The SAPS are currently increasing capacity in their respective
components.
•
The DOJ & CD is busy improving capacity at all courts by
employing more personnel and providing IT infrastructure.
9
Addressing Case Backlogs cont.
4.
The judiciary is currently being engaged to initiate a continuous roll
system in their respective jurisdictions.
5.
The NPA is monitoring in conjunction with the SAPS the quality of
investigations (and time taken to conclude them) and evidence; and
improving the management of witnesses.
6.
The high influx of cases in our Lower Courts, especially in the District
Courts, necessitates the consideration of alternative methods to reduce
trial cases e.g. diversion.
7.
Plea and sentence agreements or plea bargaining were reached on
2 164 offences, and this being promoted further
8.
Intersectoral Task Team led by the DOJCD/NPA identifies the main
centres with trial ready backlog cases for urgent intervention through
the establishment of amongst others, temporary backlog courts to solely
focus on reducing the backlogs at those centres (regional court cases
will be prioritised), other case backlog initiatives
10
Definition of “Backlog”
• There are many different interpretations, but in general we view a
backlog case in Lower and High Courts in the following context:
– In the Lower Courts, it is a case that exceeds the cycle time of 6-months from
the date of first appearance in the District or Regional Court; and
– In the High Court, it is a case that exceeds the cycle time of 12 months from
the date of first appearance in the High Court.
• However, the definition relating to what comprises a backlog case in
terms of the above case cycle times is currently receiving attention
because in regional courts most cases take longer to be dealt with
than in the district courts and a possible measure of a case that
exceeds the cycle time of 9 months in the regional courts and 16
months in the high courts would be more realistic. A meeting with all
relevant role-players to discuss a new definition is scheduled for
middle February 2007.
11
Backlog Statistics - 2006
The baseline statistics for the project is the statistics at the end of June 2006 from the NPA.
Compared to the October and November 2006 statistics, the picture is as follows:
30 June 2006
Base line
30 October 2006
30 NOV 2006
Backlogs
34 644 cases constituting 19% of the
total of
181 976 outstanding cases
33 449 cases constituting 19% of the
total of
177 544 outstanding cases
33435 cases constituting 18% of the
total of
185299 outstanding cases
High Courts
154 cases (13%) of 1206 outstanding
cases
167 backlog cases (14%) of 1213
outstanding cases
184 cases (16%) of 1122 outstanding
cases
Regional Courts
19 874 cases (43%) of 46 219
outstanding cases
19 104 backlog cases (41%) of 46
540 outstanding cases
19269 backlog cases (41%) of 46
095 outstanding cases
District Courts
14 616 cases (11%) of
134 551 outstanding cases
14 178 backlog cases (11%) of 129
791 outstanding cases
14166 backlog cases (10%) of 139
204 outstanding cases
12
BACLOG REDUCTION SITES
– It was decided that the initial focus in terms of backlog
reduction be the following 5 (five) regional court top backlog
hotspot sites and interventions started there on 1 November
2006:
•
•
•
•
•
Pietermaritzburg Regional Courts in KZN (76% Backlog cases)
Port Elizabeth Regional Courts in Eastern Cape (61% Backlog
cases)
Pretoria Regional Courts in Gauteng (58% Backlog cases)
Bellville Cluster in Western Cape (Regional Courts of both
Bellville (39%) and Kuilsriver (53%) to be dealt with at Kuilsriver)
Protea Regional Courts in Gauteng (60% Backlog cases) –
However in view of accommodation constraints this site dealt
with the backlogs through only Saturday courts.
13
The 5 backlog reduction sites
– The 5 backlog sites’ courts started on 1 November 2006 as
envisaged. Intersectoral engagement continued in the past
months with various meetings and discussions with the various
role players to smooth out problems and ensure that the backlog
courts operated as best as possible.
– The final general court statistics of November and December 2006
is currently receiving attention. The comprehensive Audit by the
NPA of the court rolls of all regional and High Courts at the end of
November 2006 is unfortunately taking up considerable time and
effort to finalize.
– However, the specific statistics for the 5 pilot sites are available
until the end of 2006. These statistics indicate the project is
ahead of schedule in terms of cases finalized against envisaged
finalization when we started. The backlog sites closed on 15
December in general and started again on 15 January 2007 and
all are in operation.
14
Performance at the 5 sites
–
The latest statistics relating to the backlog reduction courts at the
5 sites as at the end of December 2006, indicate the following:
CASES CONVICTION
TOTAL
WITHDRAWN
FINALISED
RATE
DISPOSED
PMB
3 CRTS
PE
3 CRTS
PTA
2 CRTS
PTA N
1 CRTS
BELLVILLE
2 CRTS
BLUE
DOWNS
PROTEA
SAT CRTS
TOTAL
AVE
CRT
HOURS
39
78%
15
54
03h22
45
76%
36
81
04h03
34
83%
31
65
03h16
16
83%
5
21
03h21
50
78%
63
113
03h05
79
71%
1
80
05h24
263
78%
151
414
04h05
15
Findings
–
•
•
•
•
•
•
IN GENERAL
The Saturday court sessions did exceptionally well but
accommodation is currently being sought for full time
assistance during the week. At least one full time extra
court will start in February 2007 at Lenasia.
The number of cases finalized at each sites is very
encouraging.
Additional legal aid representatives is a key success factor.
All sites work on a continuous roll.
Certain sites such as Bellville are making very good use of
plea bargaining to finalise old cases. Protea is doing the
same.
A challenge is that the Saturday courts require overtime
payment
16
Other Initiatives
–
In addition to continuing with the various backlog sites,
the following initiatives identified as part of the original
backlog project scope are continuously being promoted
country-wide at all courts:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Provincial Development Committees and CFM Committees to
monitor backlog and assist with the backlog projects
Fast-tracking the execution of warrants of arrest.
Increasing the number of reception and or bail courts where
possible and where required.
Improving witness preparation and getting them to court. In this
regard witness fees is a challenge as witnesses are not willing to
come to court for the current prescribed witness fees per day.
This is receiving attention.
Fast-tracking DSD reports.
Fast-tracking forensic analysis.
Identifying training needs for prosecutors, the judiciary and
training court managers and admin staff on court operations
management.
17
NEXT BACKLOG REDUCTION SITES
•
Based on the statistics and information received, the following
additional backlog sites have been identified for commencement in
February 2007:
–
Western Cape: - 4 additional courts (instead of the 6 extra sites
recommended in December 2006), namely 1x extra court for each of
the following places:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Atlantis (to help deal with the backlog cases of Cape Town, Vredenburg and
Atlantis) (62% backlogs)
Khayelitsha (42% backlogs)
Paarl (sitting at Somerset West) (53% backlogs)
Bellville – to focus on serious commercial crime backlog cases
KZN – 3 additional courts: Kokstad (59% backlogs) - One extra court ;
one extra court for Port Shepstone (62% backlogs) (but sitting at
Ezingolweni); and at Durban – one extra court for serious commercial
crime backlogs (59% backlogs).
EC: -1 additional court: Mtatha regional court (57% backlogs) - One
extra court (but sitting at Tsolo in view of accommodation challenges)
Gauteng: - 3 additional courts: One extra court for Protea (but sitting
at Lenasia); one extra court for Randburg (31% backlogs); and one
extra court at Tembisa (backlogs: 28%).
Limpopo: -1 additional court: One extra court for Mankweng (54%
backlogs)
18
APPEAL BACKLOGS
19
APPEAL BACKLOGS
•
In view of the large numbers of appeal cases still outstanding, nearly
6000 at the end of 2006, with the majority in the (TPD) Pretoria and
(WLD) Johannesburg, these two sites have been the short term focus
areas. Further planning in this regard in relation to extra appeal court
rolls will be dealt with at these sites through the recalling of retired
judges or the appointment of acting judges. Names of retired judges
have been provided to the Department by the Honourable Judge
President of the TPD. The matter will be discussed with the Judge
President and the other role players (NPA, Bar and LAB) in particular,
regarding the finalization of a roll for the second session of 2007 and
possible special courts for recess periods.
•
In the interim, arrangements are being made for 2 special TPD Appeal
courts with acting judges (comprising of senior advocates from
Pretoria and Johannesburg) to sit every Monday in Pretoria with
effect from 26 March 2007. The reason for that date is that the setting
up of such an appeal roll requires time and requires various
processes including the drafting of heads of argument etc from NPA
and LAB side. Furthermore the court rules requires cases to be set
down following a specific process which takes time.
20
Appeal Backlog Initiatives
 Identify cases to be placed out of turn.
 Identify retired judges to assist and promote with JSC
 Identify transcription services’ non-performance and rectify.
 Identify reasons for appeals not being finalised on set-down
dates.
 Identify steps to ensure finalisation on set-down dates
 Obtain assistance from Bar and Legal Aid
21
LONGER TERM CASE BACKLOG
REDUCTION INITIATIVES
• Reducing case backlogs by capacitating courts with
the required personnel and equipment in a phased
manner over the MTEF period
• Continuing with current initiatives relating to improved
case flow management across the IJS; continuing with
the IJS Review;
END RESULT:
This will lead to improved court efficiency, enhance
economic growth, create a climate of social stability and
improve confidence in the rule of law
22
QUESTIONS?
23