Reduced Court Waiting Periods - Research Proposal Example

Performance of the courts: The Case for reduced Court Waiting Periods Name of Student University Performance of the courts: the case for reduced Court Waiting Periods Abstract Court waiting times are increasingly becoming an area of concern for litigants not only within the United Arab Emirates but also all over the world. Litigants are continually facing the challenge of having to wait for long periods (sometimes spilling over into years) before their cases are concluded. Court waiting periods vary from case to case and will usually depend on the weight of the matter, number of witnesses and parties involved complexity of the matter, availability of presiding officers and magistrates (court time), availability of litigants and counsel, and many others. Some litigants also do take too long to prepare for trial. Also, the conclusion of some cases becomes dependent upon the determination of other related cases. Although the waiting time from when a case is registered to the delivery of the sentence after the first hearing has diminished from 2012 to 2015, it is more desirable than this time be reduced even further. In the Court of First Instance, it is desirable that the time between when a matter is set down for the first hearing to the day of conclusion be reduced even more in order to ensure an efficient and fast judiciary. Introduction The Research focuses on reduction of court waiting periods. The main question is: 1. What variables can influence the reduction of court waiting period in the United Arab Emirates –Dubai? The question seeks to investigate any variables that could be of help in reducing court waiting periods. In order to help answer this main question, there are other sub-questions for determination. i. What processes are involved in processing cases in courts within the UAE? ii. What are the causes of the delays in processing of cases? iii. Why do these delays continue to persist? The main question for this research seeks to question the inordinately long time it takes for matters to be concluded by the courts in the UAE. This is important because, it will highlight the loopholes that exist within the judicial system. Through the main question and the sub-question, the research seeks to highlight on the challenges faced by the judiciary in UAE in so far as delivery to the public is concerned. The law guarantees access to justice for all. However, if that justice is not delivered in good, it more or less defeats the very purpose for the existence of the law in the first place. The question in retrospect seeks to raise concerns over the level of Perfomance and service delivery by the courts in UAE. Through an attempt to answer this question, an understanding of the case management systems and procedures will be enhanced. The main aim remains integrating factors into the judiciary system in order to reduce the court waiting periods in Dubai. Relation to Previous Research According to a report by the Parliamentary Accounts Committee (PAC Report 2012), excessive delays at the courts continue to concern governments all over the world. Research indicates that much of this delay is actually caused by the litigants themselves. In terms of actions by the state, the National Centre for State Courts (NCSC) within the United States of America has made strides towards setting limits for determination of cases. According to the NCSC (2013), it is important to set time disposition standards for courts to abide by. In the United States for instance, felony cases are required to be completed within 90 days (NCSC, 2013). This standard was based on the capabilities and Perfomance of courts in these matters. Earlier in 1983, a 180-day time standard for these cases had been set (NCSC, 2013). In many jurisdictions however, the achievement of these goals usually involves more than one court. These time standards are usually considered from filing of the initial complaint to sentencing. In misdemeanour cases, courts are expected to conclude within 60 days. Misdemeanours are basically cases whose punishment is incarceration for less than a year or payable in terms of fines. This is an improvement from the 90-day standard time period that had been effected since 1983. In traffic and local ordinance cases, the completion period is capped at 30 days. Noferi (2015) observes that this is only applicable in States where such matters have not been criminalized. In Habeas Corpus and other similar post-conviction proceedings, the time standard has been capped at 180 days. These are cases that mostly involve appeals for review of criminal convictions. In general civil cases, courts are required to complete within 180 days. In 1983, such cases were required to be determined within 12 months after initial filing. In summary civil cases (small claims), courts have also been given an allowance of 60days to completion. In divorce petitions, the time period is 120 days. From the above examples from the United States, Dubai may be at an advantaged position of benchmarking to improve their situation. For instance, Dubai may emulate the Singapore example by implementing an electronic court system that allows for litigants to file their courts papers electronically. This will save parties time and costs. Dubai may also emulate the UK system of improving the availability of counsel to those who cannot afford. This can be done through a system of pro bono assignment of deserving cases to litigation counsels by the courts. This will save time spent by unrepresented litigants to prepare for court due to their limited knowledge of court procedures. In 2014, Dubai launched a new interactive system for managing cases at the commercial court of first instance. The system reduced the time of the date for the first hearing from 90 days to 30 days. The system was able to do this by reducing procedural bureaucracies (Noferi, 2015). In Singapore, the clearance rate for civil and criminal matters files at the Singapore Supreme Court was 98% in 2010 (Pinsler, 2013). In terms of court waiting times, hearings for civil cases commenced about 3 weeks after the matter had been set down for determination (Pinsler, 2013). Proposed Methods This capstone will be more focused on qualitative and quantitative methods. A quantitative research is used to quantify the problem by coming up with numerical data which can then be analysed into useable statistics (Wyse, 2013). It is an exploratory kind of research. In order to effectively carry out qualitative research, various research methodologies can be used. Some of the data used will be collected from Dubai Court database. Surveys are a good tool for collecting information from participants or from a target audience. They involve questions for which the participants give responses (Murray, 2013). We will check with lawyers, and clients of Dubai court. We will also interview policy makers at Dubai court. The advantages of quantitative research method Can generalise research findings when the data is based on random samples which are of sufficient size. Useful for obtaining data which allows for quantitative predictions to be made Provides precise, quantitative numerical data. Allows for the use of statistical software to analyse data hence making data analysis relatively fast The results from the research are independent of the researcher. It is useful when dealing with a large population of people. The weaknesses of quantitative method include: The researcher’s theories relied upon may not reflect local understandings. The knowledge produced might be too abstract and too general for it to be applied to specific local contexts. The researcher’s categories may not reflect local understandings. Inability to control the environment where the participants give questions to the survey. Qualitative research method has its advantages too which include; It obtains a more realistic feel of the research environment which cannot be experienced in the numerical data and statistical analysis used in quantitative research Flexible way to effect data collection Provides a holistic view of the phenomena under investigation Ability to interact with participants in their own language and on their own terms. Descriptive capability based on primary and unstructured data. The Disadvantages of the qualitative method include; Departing from the original objectives of the research in response to the changing nature of the context. Arriving at different conclusions based on the same data. Difficulty in explaining the difference in the quality and quantity of information obtained. Requires a certain level of experience on the part of the researcher to obtain targeted information. In order to effectively carry out qualitative research, various research methodologies can be used. Questionnaires Questionnaires are a good tool for collecting information from participants or from a target audience. They involve questions for which the participants give responses. They are practical because they allow for collection of more information. They are also reliable because the participants themselves fill in information. Positivists believe that such information can be used to even create new theories (Murray, 2013). They are particularly reliable for people who may not have time to attend interviews or even sit in focus groups. They allow for people to think before they can respond to the questions. Also, participants are free to voice their opinions or perspectives without getting worried about the reaction of the researcher. Use of questionnaires is good because it gives the researcher the specific information that is sought while it allows participants to give information in their own words. Focus groups Focus groups are effective ways through which a researcher can get information based on people’s experiences, perspectives and knowledge base. They are a form of a group interview in which communication between members of the group leads to generation of data (Salkind, 2013). Rather than the researcher asking individual questions then waiting for their responses, members of a focus group are generally encouraged to engage in a conversation. This way, members of a focus group can be in a position to share knowledge and critique each other. According to Patten (2014), focus groups are unique because they help bring out people’s knowledge as well as examining not only what people think but also how they think and why they think in that manner. Through focus groups, people have a chance to explore and clarify their views in a better way as compared to an interview. Reflections Obtaining the information and data necessary to complete this research is not easy. One of the biggest challenges likely to be encountered relates to ethics. Ethics in terms of research deals with the interaction between the researcher and the people he deals with. According to Oja and Smulyan, (2014), there is a balanced approach that is based on established principles and guidelines for ethical research. Yet again, dealing with humans is always potentially difficult and delicate. Macintyre (2013) opines that if it comes to a point where a choice has to be made between harming a participant and harming the research, research ethics require that the research takes the fall. There are three core principles in research ethics which the researcher intends to abide by. The first is respect for people. This requires a commitment to ensuring the autonomy of research participants as well as to avoid exploiting people because of their vulnerability (Weijer et al., 2013). As such, it requires the respect of the dignity of all people. This helps avoid a situation where participants are used merely for purposes of achieving the aims of the research. The second principle is beneficence. The principle of beneficence ideally relates to actions that promote the well-being of the participants. As such, it requires a concerted effort to minimize research risks, while maximizing the benefits that the participants can get through the research (Oppenheim, 2014).The burden to ensure that the participant is well protected rests on the researcher. According to Greenbaum (2014), professionals (including researchers), ought to be of benefit to research participants as well as prevent or eradicate harm from the party. In effect, this theory also serves to discourage selfish behaviour that may cause harm to participants. In making decisions regarding ethics, other factors such as culture, religion and economic factors ought to be considered. This is primarily because this principle supports sustainability as a consideration from a social, economic and ecological perspective. Also, beneficence supports the aspect of cultural competence (Morgan, 2013). This it does by encouraging the exchange of cultural information and knowledge. For the current research, this is important in laying a basis for understanding people’s views and why they hold those views. The ethics observed in this sense will help avoid miscommunication more especially concerning cultural knowledge and issues. The third principle regards justice. According to Keeves and Lambskin (2014), justice requires that a researcher ensures a fair distribution of risks and benefit accruing from research while at the same time maximizing the benefits accruing to participants. It is therefore fair to expect that participants should be the first beneficiaries of any knowledge gained from the research exercise. Lastly, respect for communities is equally important. As such, a researcher bears the duty of ensuring that community values and interests are protected and that the entire community by extension is also protected. In this regard therefore, the researcher will put in place mechanisms to try and ensure that participants as well as the entire community are protected and that any information or ideas shared by members of the community are treated in confidence. The researcher also endeavours to obtained informed consent from participants prior to commencement of the engagements with focus groups. Informed consent is important because it gives participants leverage to choose whether or not they wish to be included in the research. References Greenbaum, T.L. (2014). The handbook goes focus group research. New York: Lexington Books. Keeves, J.P. and Lakomski, G. (Eds.). (2014). Issues in educational research. Oxford: Pergamon. Macintyre, C. (2013). The art of action research in the classroom. London: David Fulton Publishers. Morgan, D.L. (2013). Focus groups the qualitative research. Beverly Hills: SAGE publications. Murray, T.R. (2013). Blending qualitative and quantitative research methods in thesis and dissertations. Newbury Park: Corwin press. Noferi, M. ( 2015). DHS Funding Controversy Over , but Enforcement-First Approach Remains. Available at http://immigrationimpact.com. Oja, S.N. and Smulyan, L. (2014). Collaborative Action Rsearch: A developmental approach. Philadelphia, PA: The Falmer Press. Patten, M.L. (2014). Questionnaire Research: a practical guide. Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak Publishing. Pinsler, J. (2013). Court Practise: Singapore at a legal threshold. South Asian Affairs, 309-324. Salkind, N.J. (2013). Exploring Research. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Weijer, C., Goldsand, G and Emmanuel, E.J. (2013). Protecting communities in research: current guidelines and limits of extrapolation. Nature Genetics 23(3), 275-280. Wyse, S.E. (2013). Research Methodologies. Available at www.snupsurveys.com. Read More