INSIDE THE SUPREME COURT: KEY PROCEDURAL TAKEAWAYS

Introduction

The Supreme Court, the final frontier for justice, is where complex cases reach their ultimate resolution. A recent visit to the Supreme Court provided us with a fascinating glimpse into the world of criminal appeals, revealing a detailed landscape of procedural integrity and the importance of compliance with court rules. In this report, we dive into the major cases, procedural intricacies, and propose practical solutions to common challenges. We arrived at the Supreme Court around 8:30 a.m., we saw the court's machinery in action, court personnel meticulously preparing for the day. Before 9:00 a.m., the justices had taken their seats, signaling the start of proceedings. The cases presented highlighted frequent procedural hurdles, including issues of timely filing, extensions for appeals, fiat requirements, and counsel limitations. Cases 1. Criminal Appeals o Two cases stood out as the appellants sought the "trinity prayers"—1) an extension of time to seek leave to appeal, 2) leave to appeal, and 3) an extension to file the appeal. Under the 2024 Supreme Court Rules, these procedural steps have grown stricter, particularly for criminal cases, which require:  A certified copy of the trial court decision  An order from the Court of Appeal, if applicable  A written address in support With a 30-day deadline for filings, cases that miss this timeline face dismissal. In these appeals, delays led to noncompliance, and the court declined to regularize them. With regards to fiats there were major challenges which affected several cases. A fiat is a special permission from the Attorney General for counsel to represent the state. The fiats presented lacked alignment with specific appeal cases. The court reminded parties that only attorneys named in the fiat could represent the state and advised withdrawal when fiats didn’t correspond with case details. This procedural misalignment underscored the importance of proper documentation. With regards to death sentence, the presiding justice highlighted procedural differences in capital appeals, pointing out that certain appeals do not require leave, unlike non-capital cases. Here, timing and sequence in filings were emphasized. The Supreme Court refused counsel who arrived with more than five associates to announce appearance for the other counsel except for himself and five others. The court clarified that only up to five co-counsel could be formally introduced, a rule that emphasizes courtroom decorum and efficiency. Other key observations included appeals against single-judge rulings in multi-judge panels, which the court struck out for procedural inaccuracy. Additionally, a case misidentified in its fiat's appeal number revealed the need for meticulous case file alignment. Gray Areas and Suggested Resolutions Our observations revealed several procedural challenges, where practical adjustments could greatly enhance efficiency and justice delivery. 1. Incompetent Processes Due to Filing Delays o Issue: Appeals dismissed for filing delays prevent justice. While the 2024 rules aim for efficiency, delays in obtaining records or authorizations often result in untimely filings. o Resolution: The 2024 rules offer a progressive solution in Order 4 Rule 16, allowing the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal without oral hearings when the records justify it. Additionally, Order 6 Rule 2 includes electronic record filing, an update that promises improved processing speed. 2. Streamlining Fiat Requirements o Issue: Misaligned fiats cause delays and potential case withdrawals. o Resolution: A standardized fiat format and a verification process could prevent errors. Further, electronic issuance by the Attorney General’s office might ensure timely, error-free filings. 3. Limits on Counsel Appearances o Issue: Some counsel misinterpret the five-co-counsel limit, causing minor disruptions. o Resolution: Clearer guidelines for counsel on appearance limitations, communicated during case scheduling, would prevent confusion. 4. Improved Record Compilation and Filing Order o Issue: Records of appeal must be filed after notices, yet procedural misunderstandings persist. o Resolution: A step-by-step appeals guide, available electronically, would assist new counsel in navigating these requirements and ensure correct filing order. The 2024 rules now allow three months under Order 6 Rule 4, but a 30-day follow-up deadline per Order 6 Rule 7 underscores timely processing. 5. Clarifying Appeals Against Single Judges o Issue: Appeals misdirected at single-judge decisions in multi-judge panels face dismissal. o Resolution: Pre-screening appeals at the Court of Appeal could prevent such errors from reaching the Supreme Court. 6. Procedural Distinctions for Capital Cases o Issue: The distinctions in procedural requirements for capital versus non-capital cases need reinforcement. o Resolution: Regular procedural training for counsel, particularly for capital cases, could strengthen adherence to Supreme Court requirements. Conclusion Observing Supreme Court proceedings offered a firsthand view of the rigour and discipline governing criminal appeals. The procedural vigilance required is a testament to the court’s dedication to justice amid a high caseload. For counsel and appellants alike, understanding these nuanced requirements ensures that justice isn’t lost to procedural inaccuracy, allowing the Supreme Court to focus on cases of substantive merit. This visit highlighted the evolving landscape of Supreme Court procedural rules, and while challenges remain, solutions within the 2024 rules pave the way for a smoother, more accessible appeals process.