[Opinion] Delayed Justice Is Not Justice

Serious Delays in Trials and Investigations
Statistics on Case Processing Delays Released
Increase in Judges and Prosecutors... Clear Accountability
Practical Litigation Procedures Expected to Have Significant Impact

Article 27, Paragraph 3 of our Constitution states, "All citizens have the right to receive a prompt trial." Is this constitutional right being upheld?

Unresolved cases are piling up in the police, prosecution, and courts, regardless of whether they are criminal or civil cases. Even when citizens file complaints claiming harm, cases are bounced back and forth between the prosecution and police, with no conclusion reached for 2 to 3 years, leading to a sharp increase in long-term unresolved cases during the investigation phase. Complex cases take several years to investigate, and it takes several more years for the trial to conclude.

Lawyers handling litigation on the front lines unanimously speak about the seriousness of case processing delays. The statistics also reveal the problem. As of the year before last, the average time from filing to the first hearing for first-instance civil substantive cases in courts nationwide was about five months, and about eight months for appeals. There are also frequent cases where the first hearing is scheduled after more than a year. For criminal trials nationwide, the average time from case filing to the first hearing was 80 days for first instance and 125 days for appeals. It is common for first-instance judgments alone to take two to three years.

Given this reality, it cannot be said that the rights of victims are being properly remedied or that crimes are being adequately punished. The inconvenience and suffering of citizens involved in trials are also severe. Delays in investigation or trial procedures mean a loss of dispute resolution functions, which directly leads to a decline in national competitiveness. It was internationally recognized that prompt dispute resolution greatly contributed to South Korea’s national competitiveness, but this advantage is disappearing. Fundamental measures are needed.

First, the delays in case processing by the police, prosecution, and courts must be thoroughly investigated, and all statistics should be disclosed to the public. Only then can the problem be accurately diagnosed and resolved.

Second, prosecutors and judges must be drastically increased. Last year, the Judge Increase Act and Prosecutor Increase Act were amended, and starting this year, 370 judges and 220 prosecutors will be added over five years. This is the first increase in judges and prosecutors in eight years since 2014, which is somewhat fortunate. However, increasing the number of judges and prosecutors by only a few dozen per year is unlikely to solve the problem of case processing delays.

The increase in judges and prosecutors has so far been based primarily on the number of cases, which does not reflect the actual workload. The workload required to handle a single case has increased several times compared to the past. This aspect must be quantitatively and accurately reflected in securing an appropriate number of judges and prosecutors.

Third, due to the side effects of the adjustment of investigative authority, the responsibility for delays in case processing between the police and prosecution has become ambiguous. Whether police or prosecution, a responsible investigation system must be established to clearly assign accountability for investigation delays.

Fourth, measures to address trial delays are needed from the perspective of judicial administration. There is a widespread atmosphere within the courts that judges are not working diligently, and it is often said that the Supreme Court is effectively neglecting the issue. I want to believe this is not true.

Managing trial delays is a responsibility to the public and is unrelated to judicial independence. In New York State, USA, statistics on trial delays are disclosed to all judges, and cases that do not hold jury trials within 6 to 9 months after indictment are specially managed as delayed cases. In Germany, the Trial Delay Compensation Act was enacted in 2011, compensating 100 euros for every month of trial delay. Advanced countries are making various efforts to prevent trial delays.

Finally, it is time to introduce a practical Anglo-American style litigation procedure, such as the plea bargain system, which handles most cases in a simplified manner and focuses hearings on contested cases between parties. This would have the effect of multiplying the impact of increasing judges and prosecutors. It is a fundamental solution.

Justice delayed is justice denied. This year is the Year of the Rabbit, Gyemyo. Like a rabbit, I hope the government and judiciary will take the lead in restoring the tradition and strengths of our judicial system, where citizens’ rights are promptly remedied and disputes are quickly resolved.

Kim Ki-dong, Chief Attorney, Law Firm Robaeks