THERE should be clear support for our judges in their ongoing battle to instil standards into the performance of law in Papua New Guinea.
The National has long carried an embarrassing string of reports about non-performing lawyers.
These are attorneys for whom any excuse is sufficient to escape what they see as the drudgery of preparing a high standard of representation of their clients.
The incidence of the performance of lawyers being strongly criticised by judges is increasing.
Too often, lawyers stroll into court late and present lame excuses.
Some are there to represent clients with little money or resources, people who have approached the Public Solicitor with their concerns.
More and more frequently their lack of interest in their briefs is plainly obvious.
Where they do attempt to represent their clients, it is often obvious how little background research they have undertaken.
The result is a seemingly endless series of requests for time to “familiarise” themselves with cases.
This is one of the reasons for the log-jam in the PNG courts. The number of adjourned cases now threatens the orderly progress of hearings and ultimately the dispensing of justice.
But there are far more serious cases, ones involving the deliberate avoidance of clear instructions from a judge or magistrate.
One such case occurred in a court sitting presided over by Mr Justice Bernard Sakora and it involved no less a lawyer than the acting Solicitor-General, who is now facing a six-month jail sentence with hard labour as a result of his failure to act on a mandamus judgement.
The senior lawyer failed to act on a decision brought down in court.
The contempt of court finding by Judge Sakora came after a three-month delay during which the acting Solicitor-General failed to take any action.
The judge outlined the variety of contempt of court charges available to the court and labelled the matter before him a category four charge – referred to as failure to obey a court order.
Clearly irate at the senior lawyer’s attitude and actions, the judge noted that he had “consistently demonstrated his lack of respect for justice and for PNG through his blatant refusal to act on the court order”.
Judge Sakora added: “In the process he brought the legal process into disrepute.”
There’s a perception in PNG that such actions by judges against lawyers are merely the public playing-out of private feuds.
Not so – at least not in any case of which we are aware.
On the contrary, judges who defend the integrity of their courts through means such as contempt of court convictions are reinforcing the fabric of the law and by extension the country and its people.
A major difficulty in PNG is to inculcate a sense of adopted western justice into the minds and hearts of our people.
Part of that sense must relate to the workings of the court and the findings of the judges while buttressing a sense of ultimate and accessible justice available to all.
The National has long defended the courts in the belief that they represent one just and honest aspect of our society.
Certainly judges make mistakes from time to time but an effective appeal system exists to maintain checks and balances.
It is vital that our people respect the rule of law and the reinforcement of the laws of the nation through strict observance of court processes.
The matter before Judge Sakora was not a trivial one, but involved large sums of money.
It’s therefore all the more damning that the judge referred to the matter as “a long-running saga” and noted that the State treated the plaintiffs “with disdain”.
The judge added that “the plaintiffs … had unashamedly been given the run-around … they are foreigners but have respected our laws and authority.”
No matter from which angle this matter is examined, one inescapable outcome is clear – poorly performing lawyers have a far-reaching effect.
They compromise the courts and the decisions of the judges; they fail to satisfactorily service the public and they fail to uphold and reinforce the professionalism of their profession.
The National applauds the strict interpretation of the law apparent today in our courts and commends the judges who stand behind such decisions.