1

NATIONAL IJS NATIONAL IJS CASE BACKLOG CASE BACKLOG

REDUCTION STRATEGYREDUCTION STRATEGY

PRESENTATION BY ADV S JIYANE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: COURT SERVICES

30 JANUARY 2007

2

CONTENT• Introduction

• Background info– Court Demographics

– Court Workload

• The current Case Backlog Project

• Appeal Backlogs

• Longer Term Initiatives

3

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.

4

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.

5

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

6

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)

7

Reducing case backlogs

% Reduction during 2006/07

Verification & Analysis

Policy & Legislation

Monitoring & Evaluation

Implementation Communication

Project Reporting Communication

Risk ManagementIssue Escalation

Timeous Issue Resolution

Stakeholder Mngmt &

Integration

Resourcing & Budget

Project MethodologyProject Methodology

8

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.)

9

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.

10

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

11

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.

12

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

13

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.

14

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.

15

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

FINALISED CONVICTION

RATE WITHDRAWN

TOTAL DISPOSED

AVE CRT

HOURS PMB 3 CRTS

39 78% 15 54 03h22

PE 3 CRTS

45 76% 36 81 04h03

PTA 2 CRTS

34 83% 31 65 03h16

PTA N 1 CRTS

16 83% 5 21 03h21

BELLVILLE 2 CRTS BLUE DOWNS

50 78% 63 113 03h05

PROTEA SAT CRTS

79 71% 1 80 05h24

TOTAL 263 78% 151 414 04h05

16

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

17

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.

18

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)

19

APPEAL BACKLOGSAPPEAL BACKLOGS

20

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.

21

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

Appeal Backlog Initiatives

22

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

23

QUESTIONS?QUESTIONS?