For a party who has been wronged, every passing moment in which the wrong persists serves to aggravate the original wrong.
Most obviously, in criminal matters, it is generally accepted that a victim is not vindicated until the crime has been publicly denounced and condemned – typically by sanctioning and sentencing the criminal.
More mundane situations exist where spouses are forced to remain married until a divorce is pronounced, a landlord has to suffer the continued illegal occupation of his property by a ruthless tenant, an employee has been sacked without compensation … and the list is as long as any everyday situation we come across.
But here is the catch – as wronged as anyone may feel, it is not up to him to decide on the other person’s wrongdoing. This is a job of the Court of law and tribunals – of judges, magistrates and adjudicators.
In our adversarial system of law, there are always two or more versions to the same story. Tenets of natural justice require the conduct of a fair hearing – giving maximum latitude to each party to have himself represented , be heard and put his version forward. Only when due process has been afforded can a decision be reached.
All this tends to lead to protracted proceedings. Once lawyers get involved, there will be a spin to every story – and with strategies and court proceedings being fine-tuned to perfection, there is little hope of an expeditious outcome. And just as there are many ways to skin the cat, there are many ways for the culpable party to stall the dawn to his day of reckoning.
That someone who fears retribution for his wrongdoings should want to hide from justice is dishonest. That he should be allowed to play every trick in the book before he puts in his final word is unacceptable. That he should be allowed to hijack the whole court process to serve his own immoral and self-interested goals, is despicable.
But the end of the trial is not the end of the story – or should we say, epic. After the trial, judgment needs to be delivered.
Since legal transparency demands verdicts to be motivated and reasoned, these are usually handed down in writing – sometimes complex legal arguments and convoluted facts require considerable thought and research, resulting in a long wait for closure.
Add to this the real chances that a legal finding may be totally unsatisfactory to the losing party, and you have a further wait till an appeal is lodged and determined.
All in all, in taking a dispute to Court, the time factor is of utmost importance – even a determining consideration. If you have the time, you may not have the money – as we all know that a court process is a costly affair. And if you have both time and money, you may not have the staying power required for frequent visits to your lawyers and recurrent postponements.
In Bleak House, all the protagonists are unwittingly linked to the never-ending case of a disputed will in the Chancery Court. Although no reference is actually made to the case itself, its looming presence throughout the plot is unescapable. The extent of its influence on the characters is the actual storyline – misery, patience, resilience, power, mistrust, poverty, despair and hope are the intermingled active ingredients. In the preface to his book, Charles Dickens cites 2 actual court cases which inspired the plot : one lasted 17 years whilst the other was concluded after 55 years !
Court processes in the United Kingdom (and by extension Commonwealth countries) have since been streamlined and such delays in the conclusion of court cases are now somewhat exceptional – but they still happen.
So next time you are minded to throw in the towel on a dispute, and go to Court – think again !