‘Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied’ is a legal maxim that emphasises delays by the court in delivering verdicts and resolutions diminish the fairness of justice. Justice is a cornerstone of any functioning society and delays in its delivery undermines the judiciary’s credibility and harm those it serves. In Malaysia, the issue of delayed justice is drawing increasing public attention, exacerbated by case backlogs and inefficiencies within the legal system.
It is important to acknowledge the factors contribute to delayed justice in Malaysia. One of the most significant factors contributing to delayed justice is the massive backlog of cases. This issue was highlighted by Judge Richard Talalla J in Lai Cheng Chong v. Public Prosecutor [1993] CLJU 33 where he states “At no time has it been truer to say that justice delayed is justice denied. It cannot be disputed that at this point of time justice is so delayed in our Courts as to amount to denial.”
He pointed out statistics shows the main cause for huge case backlogs is adjournment and postponement of trails on the date appointed for trial, largely, occasioned by Counsel applying for the same on a variety of grounds, most of them avoidable if Counsel’s affairs were managed fairly and reasonably bearing in mind Counsel’s duty not only to the client but also to the Court and the public at large. There is no denying that some litigators exploit such tactics under the pretence of requiring additional preparation time, following the change of solicitors. This practice prolongs the hearing date, which ultimately delays the judgment.
The shortage of judges, competency and resources causes delay in delivering timely justice. In 2018, Gopal Sri Ram noted the challenges faced by Court of Appeal in delivering written judgments. He argued that some judges lack interest or sufficient knowledge in the subject matter. Chief Justice Raus Sharif reported that as of December 31, 2017, there were 3,998 pending appeals in the Court of Appeal. This is concerning given that judges are required to complete their judgments within eight weeks of an appeal being filed but systemic inefficiencies make this timeline challenging to meet. This situation raises legitimate concerns about the judiciary’s ability to uphold timely justice.
Courts sometimes delay proceedings in anticipation of legislative changes. For example, in June 2024, the High Court postponed the hearing of a lawsuit filed by six USM medical genetics pathology graduates against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for refusing to approve their NSR registration applications. The postponement was granted to await amendments to the Medical Act, which might resolve issues related to the professional recognition of qualifications. While such decisions aim to ensure comprehensive outcomes, they can inadvertently contribute to delays.
Another factor is delays in investigations and prosecution. Police and prosecution agencies often take excessive time to investigate and prepare cases. For example, in a corruption and money laundering case involving the Segambut Bersatu deputy chief and the Jana Wibawa projects, the prosecution requested the Sessions Court to postpone its decision. This was because the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) had yet to decide on a representation submitted by the accused in July, with a new decision date set only for late August. Thus, delays in decision-making and procedures can obstruct the administration of justice.
The delays in the justice system have far-reaching consequences. Delayed justice erodes public trust in the judiciary and can force victims and witnesses to endure ongoing trauma while waiting for the closure that a final judgment might bring. In Sam Ke Ting lwn. PP [2023] 5 CLJ 704, the Court of Appeal held the first judge erred in law for convicting Sam of driving recklessly or dangerously until it caused the death of the eight teenagers because duplicity in the charge is in contravention to s.163 of the CPC (a charge should only contain one offence). The six-years of legal battle caused the victims’ families to cope with the grief of losing their loved ones and Sam to endure legal uncertainty and public scrutiny. In addition, delays can impose a significant financial burden on the parties involved, as prolonged legal proceedings are often expensive. This may force some parties to withdraw from the case, denying them the opportunity to seek the justice they rightfully deserve.
Measures must be taken to effectively address the causes of delayed justice. The government should prioritize in increasing the number of judges to alleviate case backlogs and improve judges remuneration to attract and retain highly qualified professionals. Furthermore, utilizing technology and resources to improve case management, record-keeping, and communication can enhance efficiency in the judicial process. Moreover, counsels should promote alternative dispute resolution methods such as mediation and arbitration to help ease the burden on the courts and expedite the settlement process for all parties involved. Additionally, courts must hold lawyers and parties accountable for hindering progress through unnecessary delays. This aligns with our former Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi’s call for judges to reject delaying tactics through frivolous applications.
In essence, effectiveness and fairness of justice uphold public confidence in the judiciary. The Malaysian legal system must address the causes of delays and ensure that justice is served in a timely manner. Otherwise, the delays in justice cause immense harm to individuals, families, and society at large, undermining the trust and credibility of the judiciary. Hence, it is imperative for the legal system to deliver justice without unnecessary delay.