The Senate then turned to two other bills that are also supposed to implement judicial reforms. The first one is called the Supreme Court of Judicature Amendment Bill of 2021.
In that bill, the government wants to give litigants the option to get a decision from a substitute judge, in the event that the judge who heard their case leaves office before handing down a decision. Again, Courtenay and Peyrefitte disagreed, and here's that back and forth:
Hon. Eamon Courtenay - Leader of Government Business "Once again, Madam President, we are faced with a situation where there are dozens of cases that have been heard and completed before judges who have now retired or have demitted office, and they have not delivered any judgment. What this bill provides for is that the parties can determine that they will agree that another judge will pick up those papers, and hear the case. So, it won't be a whole new retrial. It is just taking the papers, if the parties agree, so as to save expense and to get a judgment. It is a crisis that we're facing. We're trying to provide a way for judgments to be delivered in circumstances where the judge who heard the case is no longer available."
Hon. Michael Peyrefitte - UDP Senator "I understand what the government is trying to do, Madam President, and I don't immediately resist it, especially since I see, in part B, that the parties must consent. But, I think it would have been better for us to indicate at what stage it would be safe. If you are not yet at case management or pretrial review, or if the trial was tried on paper only, or law only, then I can understand that, Madam President. But, when you have a trial in which the judge has to determine the veracity of a witness, and the judge has to observe that witness' body language and to see and determine if that person is telling the truth or not, I don't think that a judge picking up a case after that point can appreciate what the judge at first saw."
Hon. Eamon Courtenay "There are many cases, many cases, where the determination is not based on the credibility of the witness. There are many cases where the entire case is conducted on paper, affidavit, witness statements, and witnesses don't turn up. There are many cases, where there are only legal submissions that are way. Without this law, those cases can be tried before a judge, and that judge dies. That judge demits office; that judge disappears."
And the final big change in the court comes by way of the Court of Appeal Amendment Bill 2021. It's a similar idea as the Supreme Court Amendment Bill. The government is trying to give litigants an opportunity to still get a judgment in the event that a member of the panel of judges leaves office before writing his judgment. On that one, the PUP and UDP Senators found the rare common cause:
Hon. Eamon Courtenay "Madam President, as I alluded to just now, this is absolutely the same thing, now at the Court of Appeal, and if a single judge hears an application, and is no longer in office, you can agree for another judge of the Court of Appeal to give a judgment in that case. If you have a hearing of 3 judges, and one of them demits office, then one of them can agree that the other 2, who have heard the appeal, deliver the judgment, and the judgment would be valid. The parties must consent in both cases."
Hon. Michael Peyrefitte "I disagree that they are the same, Madam President, and that is why I would support this. I would support the Court of Appeal Amendment readily because, at the Court of Appeal level, you're not dealing with the determination of veracity, based on assessing a witness' behaviour. At the Court of Appeal level, it's all paper. It's all law, at this stage, it can work. So, we're not obstructionist you know, Madam President. So, when it makes sense, we'll support it, man."
At the end of the meeting, all of these bills were passed. They will become law as soon as they get the assent of the Governor-General.
