Department of Law

Name: Aaqib Safeer

Roll No- 515

Semester: 5th

Section A

Assignment Topic:

Cause of delay in disposition of criminal justice.

Subject

Criminal Law-I

Table of content

 Introduction
 Causes of delay
 Upaar cinema Case
 Cause of delay in the disposition of criminal justice in Upaar Cinema Case
 Hashimpura massacre case
 Cause of delay in the disposition of criminal justice in Hashmipura Massacre Case

Causes of delay in disposition of criminal justice

Delay in the Criminal Justice System has long been perceived as a serious problem "not easily
controlled by executive, legislative or judicial branches of government". The public, the
individual offender and the victim have a right to the prompt disposition of the criminal case in
which they are involved. Nevertheless, mainly the right of the offender for a fair and quick trial
plays an important role in decisions by the European Court of Human Rights, the European
Commission and the higher courts of the member states. Both the right of the victim and the
concern of the public should be discussed under the aspect of delay more than it is done till
now.

There are many reasons for this concern about delay in the criminal justice system. Delay
influences the effectiveness of the system and especially the effectiveness of the punishment
by postponing the sanction and putting off the punishment of the guilty and the vindication of
the innocent. Both individual and general deterrent effects may be influenced by delayed
reactions. In the terms of the theory of "positive general deterrence", intending to strengthen
the attitudes of the law abiding people, justice delayed might be justice denied.

Definition of "Delay" and of "Causes for Delay"

Delay

A procedure is delayed whenever it takes more time than necessarily required by the penal
system, considering all procedural, constitutional and other rights of defendant, victim and
witness.

Cause of Delay

A cause for delay can be any factor, aspect or circumstance affecting the length and / or the
type of procedure, resulting in a delay as defined above.

Case processing time and delay

If we use the term "case processing time" for the time needed to process a file through the
criminal justice system, this time might be shorter or longer depending on different factors
influencing the means of processing and the means by which the case is cleared. The term "case
processing time" is a neutral, descriptive definition with no pejorative meanings. To get ideas
on how to shorten case processing time and to have files processed more speedily and
effectively, it seems to be significant to find out which factors might influence this time.When
analyzing the causes of delay, we can find avoidable causes, superfluous causes, necessary
causes (no delay, if we use the definition above), unlawful, unconstitutional causes, or causes
violating the European Convention on Human Rights.

Causes can be shared by individuals and institutions who are responsible for the delay. In the
following section we will try to list some assumed and proven causes of delay, or factors
influencing the case processing time. Interviewing criminal justice officials will uncover many
more causes of delay, especially if we look at very special regions or court districts.

Causes for delay at different levels of and caused by different factors within the criminal

justice system

Judge and Court

Taft reported some eighty years ago that a system "had a marvelously good effect in keeping
the dockets of the court clear". This system denied a judge his regular monthly salary unless he
filed a certificate in which he declared that he had disposed of all the business submitted to him
within the previous sixty days. Because such easy solutions are not feasible in today's
democratic societies for whatever reason , we find at least in the United States a thorough
research on court delay. But as Garner (1986) pointed out, the bulk of the research on court
delay is content to collect data and report findings without any specification of their theoretical
implications (8). This might be one of the reasons why the empirical results of the studies on
court delay generally speaking are not uniform and at least unsatisfactory.
Expert

An expert may delay the case processing if his report takes longer because of necessary special
examinations (medical, psychiatric, or psychological) or analysis (chemical, physical or other).
Delay may also be caused by the fact that an special expert is needed for the case and is not
available, or because of problems with the evidence (e.g. very small pieces or pieces which are
very difficult to examine). To reduce this possibility of a delay, the already mentioned German
Reform of 1974 gave the court the possibility to arrange a term to deliver the report and to
impose sanctions, if the expert does not submit his report in time.

Defendant, victim, and witness

As to the other participants, we have a bulk of causes which may delay the case processing.
Waiting time often can not be avoided because of rights of the victim or defendant, or due to
procedural restraints. A delay may be in the interest of the offender, e.g. to stay at a special pre
trial detention centre, to get time to show the court good behaviour, or simply to stay free in
case a custodial sentence is expected. Characteristics of the defendant may have a major effect
on delay as reported by Eisenstein and Jacob (1977), but it was not determined in which way
the different characteristics affect delay. If the defendant or the victim or witness is ill, old,
handicapped, or not able to follow the proceedings for other reasons, this causes delay as does
the fact that he is out of town, or is a foreigner and does not speak the language of the court.
Delay can be caused by victims and witnesses if they give conflicting testimonies and evidence
or withdraw their testimony.

Prosecutor

As the prosecutor makes decisions concerning the charge, its seriousness and its complexity, his
decision can have an important influence on delay. Here again, empirical results are not
uniform. Researchers report only occasionally about significant independent effects on case
processing time hinging on charge seriousness and with contradictory empirical findings or only
little direct impact of offence type and seriousness of the charge. The findings suggest indirect
influence, mostly through mode of disposition and motions filed.

Different results are reported for charge complexity. Because of the extremely organized
administrative work of prosecutors, all possible administrative causes mentioned later may
account for delay at the prosecutorial stage.

Police

Delay can be produced if a case is taken unnecessarily to the criminal investigating police or to
the detectives by the patrol police, even though evidence may have been sufficient to pass the
file directly to the prosecutor or for a decision to be made by the patrol police themselves. If a
case has to be dealt with by special police departments and those departments have a case
over load at that particular time, this can cause delay as any queuing effect might. Cases going
back and forth between special task forces (tax , custom and investigation service)

and the police, or special branches of the criminal police (drug department; homicide
department; prostitution department) might take a significantly longer time to proceed than
regular cases. Problems in communication and cooperation between uniformed police, criminal
police, and detectives might cause delays in investigating, as problems in cooperation between
police and prosecutor.

The kind of the evidence might have an impact on case processing time, as weak evidence leads
to easy and quick dismissals, strong evidence to a quick charge for trial, and "medium" evidence
to further inquiries and thus delays in the procedure. Short and negligently handled inquiries
may result in lengthy court proceedings, because further inquiries are necessary. Prosecutors
tend to agree, that negligent inquiries are rare due to double control of investigations by both
the police and prosecutors. Furthermore it is mentioned, that a prosecutor, who is repeatedly
responsible for negligently prepared cases, is controlled and sanctioned by "his" court or judge
through informal but very effective means.
Defence:

The defence attorney has considerable potential influence on how and when the case is
disposed. Empirical research in the U.S. tends to support the notion that cases with privately
hired attorneys move more slowly than cases handled without any counsel or by a public
defender.Other possibilities for intended delay by the defence are when a guilty verdict is
certain, and the defence tries to gain time (for whatever purpose) or to produce reasons for an
appeal.

Appeal

An appeal necessarily lengthens the case processing. Here again it is a question of definition,
whether an appeal is a cause for "delay" or a regular part of the criminal justice system. One
might say, that only successful appeals should not be counted as causes for delay, but normally
one doesn't know the result at the time, an appeal is made. It is hard to tell whether an appeal
is actually abusive, because not every unsuccessful appeal is made for abusive reasons .
Sentenced offenders may appeal a decision in order to stay in the pre trial detention centre in
their neighborhood and not be moved to a distant institution.

A study showed, that appeals in West Germany were successful in some 37% of the cases
where the defendant appeals, and in some 58% of the cases where the prosecutor appeals
(Bender & Heissler, 1978). The official statistic gives no information on the success of the
appeal, but 64.7% of the appeals of sentences by the district court are rejected as
unfounded/unreasonable or inadmissible.

General organizational aspects

General organizational aspects, causing delay on nearly every level of the penal law system are
plentiful. A look at what the research in the sociology of organizations and the psychology of
organizational management has found would show, that we can transfer most of these results
to the different levels of the criminal justice system, starting from the police and ending with
the prison system. More individual aspects lead to the psychology of the law enforcement
agents. The personal satisfaction of clearing a case and a file in a competent manner may either
increase or decrease the case processing time. Other psychological factors such as promotion of
ones career through efficient work methods or being overwhelmed by an unmanageable
number of files or having temporary working problems caused by personal and others reasons,
definitely have an impact on the manner in which a case is processed, or the time needed to
clear a file. Here again, it is very difficult to find out, what aspects might cause delay and what
might speed up the case handling (not to mention the way these factors are influenced).
Everybody knows stories about prosecutors or judges with dozens or even hundreds of
"sleeping" files in their cabinets.

Delay incident to the jury.

The time and methods taken to obtain a jury have brought scandalon the system. It occasions
little surprise that in some jurisdictionsthe necessity of an unanimous verdict is no longer
required, and thatapparent miscarriages of justice evoke the frequent comment, "Whatelse
could you expect of a jury !" It is too painfully evident to admitof denial that the methods
generally pursued for impanelling andselecting jurors do not bring the most competent and
qualified mem-bers of the community into service, and usually each successive processin the
selection tends to diminish the average of their intelligence. Infact, it- requires no discernment
to note the pblicy and purpose of theaccused in most instances to secure in the name of
"impartial justice"a class of jurors whose environment, association and ignorance justifyhope in
an appeal to prejudice. Indulging the presumption of innocence against open methods that
support the presumption of guilt presents a judicial paradox.
Case Laws

Uphaar Cinema Case

Facts and judgement of Uphaar Cinema case.

The Uphaar Cinema case was a tragedy that occurred in

New Delhi, India in 1997. On June 13 of that year, a fire
broke out in the Uphaar Cinema during the screening of
the film "Border", killing 59 people and injuring over 100.
The cause of the fire was determined to be
malfunctioning air-conditioning unit.The tragedy led to
criminal charges against the owners of the cinema, the
Ansal brothers, as well as against several government
officials who were accused of negligence and corruption.
The trial lasted for nearly two decades, and in 2017, the
Supreme Court of India sentenced the Ansal brothers to
two years in prison and imposed a fine of 30 crores on
them.
The judgement of the case received mixed reactions,
with some people feeling that the punishment was too
lenient, while others felt that it was appropriate given
the circumstances. The tragedy had long-lasting and far-
reaching effects, leading to changes in regulations and
building codes in India, and it served as a reminder of the
importance of safety and accountability in public spaces.

Causes of delay in the disposition of criminal justice in

Uphaar cinema case.

Legal technicalities and complexities: The Uphaar

cinema case involved a complex set of legal issues and
technicalities, which required a thorough examination by
the courts. This led to delays in the disposition of the
case as the courts had to navigate through a labyrinth of
legal arguments and evidence.
Overcrowded court dockets: The Indian judicial system is
known to be overburdened with an overwhelming
number of cases pending before the courts. This led to
delays in the disposition of the Uphaar cinema case as
the court had to prioritize other cases before it.

Lack of adequate resources: The Indian judicial system is

known to suffer from a lack of adequate resources,
including manpower, infrastructure, and technology. This
led to delays in the disposition of the Uphaar cinema
case as the court had to rely on outdated technology and
limited resources to conduct the trial.

Appellate procedures: The Uphaar cinema case involved

multiple appeals and petitions filed by the defendants,
which further delayed the disposition of the case as the
court had to hear and decide upon these appeals.
Political interference: The Uphaar cinema case was
heavily politicized, and there were allegations of political
interference in the case. This led to delays in the
disposition of the case as the court had to navigate
through the political minefield to arrive at a fair and just
decision.

2nd Case

Hashimpura Massacre Case.

The Hashimpura massacre refers to the killing of at least

42 Muslim men by members of the Indian Provincial
Armed Constabulary (PAC) in the town of Hashimpura,
Uttar Pradesh, India, on May 22, 1987. The PAC, a
paramilitary police force, rounded up a group of Muslim
men from the town, took them to a nearby canal, and
shot them. The bodies were then thrown into the canal.
The incident was widely reported and condemned, and
an investigation was launched. However, it took over two
decades for the case to come to trial, and in 2015, a
court in Uttar Pradesh acquitted all 16 PAC personnel
who had been charged with the murders. The court cited
lack of evidence as the reason for the acquittal, but many
criticized the decision and called for a re-trial.

The Hashimpura massacre is widely considered to be one

of the most egregious human rights violations in India's
recent history. It is a tragic reminder of the communal
violence that has plagued the country and the failure of
the justice system to hold those responsible accountable.
 Causes of delay in the disposition of criminal justice in
Hashimapura Massacre case

Lack of sufficient evidence: The Hashimapura massacre

case involves a large number of victims and suspects,
making it difficult to gather enough evidence to
prosecute the suspects.

Complex legal procedures: The criminal justice system in

Pakistan is known to be slow and cumbersome, with
many legal procedures that need to be followed. This can
lead to delays in the disposition of the case.

Political interference: The Hashimapura massacre case

has been marred by allegations of political interference
with some claiming that powerful politicians are trying to
influence the outcome of the case.

Limited resources: The police and other law enforcement

agencies in Pakistan often lack the necessary resources
to properly investigate and prosecute complex cases like
the Hashimapura massacre.

Fear of retaliation: Many witnesses and victims of the

Hashimapura massacre may be afraid to come forward
and testify due to fear of retaliation from the suspects or
their associates.

Corruption: Corruption within the criminal justice system

can also lead to delays in the disposition of the case. This
includes bribes, false statements, and other forms of
corruption.
 Inadequate legal representation: The Hashimapura
massacre case involves a large number of suspects and
victims, making it difficult to provide adequate legal
representation for all parties involved.

(The End)