Bar Council proposes reforms to cut delays in criminal trials

The Bar Council’s criminal law committee chairman Vivek Sukumaran has proposed measures to reduce delays in criminal cases, including requiring key investigations to be substantially completed before charges are brought.

Speaking to FMT, Vivek said chemist and forensic reports should generally be ready before a person is charged, as incomplete investigations contribute to delays in bringing cases to trial.

Vivek also proposed prioritising cases involving accused persons in custody, imposing stricter controls on postponements, and conducting regular judicial reviews to determine whether continued detention remains justified.

He said bail should be set according to an accused person’s means, as some people remain in remand for minor offences simply because they cannot raise bail or find a surety.

“No one should be held for more than two years without a verdict unless a judge is satisfied there are compelling reasons,” said Vivek.

He was commenting on an FMT report in which Chief Justice Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh voiced concern over accused persons spending lengthy periods in remand awaiting trial.

Vivek said statutory limits were necessary to prevent accused persons from languishing in custody before trial and to ensure that delays do not undermine the presumption of innocence.

Although a 2017 registrar’s circular sets a 12‑month timeframe for disposing of criminal cases in the sessions and magistrates’ courts, calculated from the date the case is registered, there is no law that compels the authorities to release an accused person whose trial does not begin within expeditiously.

Vivek said this meant an accused could remain in custody for years after being charged while waiting for trial.

He said Malaysia could look to England and Wales, where custody time limits are provided for by legislation, with extensions granted by courts only in exceptional circumstances.

Scotland also has statutory time limits for criminal proceedings involving accused persons in custody, with failure to comply resulting in bail unless the court grants an extension.

Vivek said Malaysia should similarly allow extensions where justified, while ensuring prosecution delays do not automatically result in prolonged detention.

He also proposed giving judges greater discretion to grant bail in cases where it is currently barred, including under Section 13 of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 and Section 41B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.

Lawyer S Vinesh agreed that prosecutors should ensure that key investigative work, such as obtaining chemist reports, was completed before suspects are charged.

He said prosecutors should take no more than three months to ready their case, failing which they should withdraw the charge.

Vinesh said the Criminal Procedure Code already provides timelines for criminal cases, including 30 days for the pre-trial conference, 60 days for case management and 90 days for the trial to commence after an accused is charged.

He said clearer guidelines and judicial reviews were needed to tackle delays, which can have consequences far beyond the loss of an accused person’s liberty.

“Wrongful detention does not only deprive the accused of his liberty, but can also affect his income and his family life,” he said.

“Some families may be torn apart, with marriages breaking down and children’s education affected. If he is acquitted after several years of being detained, can we give him back the years he lost?”

Subscribe to our newsletter and get news delivered to your mailbox.