• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
    • Supporting economic development
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Poverty & wellbeing
    • Social protection
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»GSDRC Publications»Addressing case delays caused by multiple adjournments

Addressing case delays caused by multiple adjournments

Helpdesk Report
  • Edward Laws
June 2016

Question

Provide examples of more and less successful attempts to address case delays in developing countries, with particular focus on delays caused by multiple adjournments.

Summary

A number of policy studies recommend measures to tackle case delays in developing countries, but relatively few of these recommendations are supported by rigorous empirical evidence. It also appears that data on court performance in developing countries is scarce. The exception to this is a series of World Bank studies, which measures the effectiveness of its justice reform projects in a range of countries, typically using aggregate statistics and random samples of case files.

Key messages:

  • Measuring court performance and establishing monitoring and reporting requirements are important methods for reducing the incidence of adjournments and addressing delays more generally.
  • Better use of information technology can assist in speeding up court processes and avoiding postponements; however, evidence from Ghana suggests that automated courts are not necessarily more efficient than un-automated courts.
  • Notwithstanding the importance of technical improvements, it is also important that reform efforts address the interests and incentives of judges, lawyers and court staff, which may create delays.
  • Strong judicial leadership can help to reduce the number of adjournments.
  • Whilst restrictions on adjournments can assist in reducing case delays, there is a risk that a lack of flexibility can result in cases being dismissed prematurely.
  • The use of penalties, sanctions and fines for non-compliance with deadlines can be effective in addressing some of the cause of adjournments and other delays; however, ‘soft sanctions’ may sometimes be more appropriate.
  • The success of the reform efforts in Ethiopia and Malaysia may be partly related to their focus on a relatively small number of judges, as this allowed members of the Supreme Court to keep close track of their compliance with adjournment policy.
file type icon See Full Report [PDF - 656 KB]

Enquirer:

  • Australian Government

Suggested citation

Laws, E. (2016). Addressing case delays caused by multiple adjournments (GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report 1374). Birmingham, UK: GSDRC, University of Birmingham.

Related Content

Gender, countering violent extremism and women, peace and security in Kenya
Helpdesk Report
2020
Border Disputes and Micro-Conflicts in South and Southeast Asia
Helpdesk Report
2020
Gender and countering violent extremism (CVE) in the Kenya Mozambique region
Helpdesk Report
2020
Key Drivers of Modern Slavery
Helpdesk Report
2020
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".OkRead more