Top Qld judge slams year-long delays in serious criminal cases

Compiling data from 31 recent criminal cases finalised between November and February, Justice Jim Henry told the Supreme Court of Queensland in Cairns that, on average, each matter spent more than a year in the lower courts (371 days) before reaching committal.

Justice Henry warned that the longstanding maxim “justice delayed is justice denied” is no longer just words on paper, but has become a stark, everyday reality for victims, accused individuals, and the wider Queensland community.

Despite the devastating toll court delays take – upending lives and placing immense strain on families – Justice Henry lamented that the public has become alarmingly desensitised to the stark, crushing reality of justice put on hold.

“We seem to have become desensitised to how problematic the day-to-day reality of delay is,” Justice Henry said.

“From the perspective of those outside the system, the pace in progressing committals through the Magistrates Court is glacial.”

Like many court systems across Australia, serious criminal charges in Queensland begin in the Magistrates Court, where they go through a committal process to decide whether the case will proceed to the Supreme Court for trial or move directly to sentencing.

VIEW ALL

However, Justice Henry revealed what he called “patterns of substantial delay” in the way cases crawl through the committal phase.

At the heart of the problem, he highlighted the system’s failure to secure early guilty pleas, noting that 92.4 per cent of matters were committed for trial, even though 85 per cent were ultimately resolved with guilty pleas in the Supreme Court.

On top of this, Jim Henry highlighted prolonged delays at every stage of the process – from arrest to committal, from the slow determination of sentences, to the late presentation of indictments – painting a stark picture of systemic gridlock.

While acknowledging clear issues within the committal phase, Justice Henry stressed that abolishing the system, as attempted in other jurisdictions, is not the answer, as it would simply shift delays further up the courts rather than eliminate them.

He emphasised that real reform depends on open dialogue and collaboration with practitioners and judicial officers who witness the system in action, allowing them to see the impact of delays on those most affected and drive the development of practical solutions.

“Acknowledgement and discussion of the problem within the profession is essential. No one of us has all the right ideas, and no one of us can forge change alone – be it legislative change, improved resourcing or the change of behavioural culture I have advocated for this evening,” Justice Henry said.

“But the best ideas will invariably come from those working within the system.

“They will come from those practitioners and judicial officers who are willing to see our system from the outside perspective of those whose lives are most detrimentally impacted by its delays – victims of crime, charged citizens and the broader community.”

However, he explained that the aim of his pointed critique of the state’s criminal justice system was not to win agreement but to ignite a crucial conversation, urging the profession to confront the severity of the problem and take decisive action to find real solutions.

“My object this evening has been to provoke a conversation. I do not care whether you agree with all the views I have sought to provoke you with,” Justice Henry said.

“What I care about is the need for the profession to realise it has a serious problem on its hands and to start discussing and pursuing solutions to it.”