The Cayman Islands Crime Reduction Strategy, recently released by the National Security Council, contained suggestions to be reviewed in due course as to their feasibility.

One suggestion is based on the premise that the administration of management of court cases needs to be improved. “All cases, including murder, must be dealt with (charge to sentence) within six months, and burglary within 10 days,” the strategy reads. “This includes putting in place measures to stop defence attorneys dragging out the process with adjournments. This could take the form of fining defence lawyers who seek to adjourn matters.”

Certainly it is easy for the public to get cynical when someone is arrested after a high-profile crime and then months pass with no discernible progress. Certainly victims and potential witnesses become disheartened when trials are scheduled and then don’t go ahead.

Why don’t they? How many adjournments and postponements and part-heard trials can be blamed on the defence attorney?

As of 27 July, over 500 attorneys were licensed to practise in Cayman. At best, six or eight of them devote themselves almost entirely to defending people charged with criminal offences. Another dozen, by generous estimate, appear in the criminal courts occasionally.

These 20 attorneys would have been involved in virtually all of the 100 cases dealt with in Grand Court last year and in those of the 1,344 Summary Court matters where defendants wanted legal representation. Plus Traffic and Youth Courts.

Bearing in mind such case loads, why would defence counsel request an adjournment in the first place?

One reason might be conflicting schedules of the various courts. Grand Court takes priority over Summary Court and the Court of Appeal takes priority over everything. If a trial or hearing runs overtime in one place, it can affect timetables elsewhere. Should the defence attorney be fined?

Sometimes crucial witnesses don’t attend. But they may be Crown witnesses as much as they may be for the Defence. Does that mean the Crown should also be fined?

In a recent Grand Court trial, the defence attorney planned to call his client’s sister in support of his alibi. But the woman was pregnant and the day before her scheduled testimony she went into premature labour. After treatment, her doctor prescribed a period of bed rest. If the defence attorney needed an adjournment as a result, should he be fined?

Sometimes witnesses are experts from overseas whose testimony is needed on technical matters such as DNA or gunshot residue or blood spatter. If the expert is needed in his own jurisdiction and can’t meet a trial date in Cayman, should someone be fined?

The potential size of a fine would also need to be considered. With many serious criminal cases requiring legal aid, would the fine be based on a percentage of the $135 per hour attorneys are eventually paid?

Maybe if defence attorneys were fined they would avoid any repetition by joining their colleagues who contribute to Cayman’s economy and stability by working in fields less likely end up in a criminal court.