Affordable Arbitration and ADR Chambers LLP

Menu

Benefits of Academia Trying Facts.
(Contents from Google AI - Public Link - Below on 17-03-26)

The proposal by retired Malaysian Court of Appeal Judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer to empower university academia to participate in the “trial of facts” in civil, commercial, and criminal matters under court supervision is designed as a structural solution to drastically reduce case backlogs and enhance judicial integrity. The concept, often termed “University Cum Court Annexed Arbitration” (for civil/commercial) and “University Cum Court and Jury Mode Criminal Trials” (for criminal), seeks to remove the burden of fact-finding from judges, allowing them to focus solely on points of law and constitutional obligations.

Here is an analysis of the proposal’s potential impact and the role of criminologists:

1. Potential to Reduce Case Backlogs

  • Outsourcing Fact-Finding: By enabling academia, lawyers, and experts to act as “affordable arbitrators” or fact-finders (under court leave), the judiciary is freed from extensive fact-finding trials, which are the primary cause of delays.
  • Arbitration Focus: The model aims to make arbitration more accessible, affordable, and supervised, which can resolve disputes faster than traditional court processes, especially in civil and commercial cases.
  • Streamlining Criminal Cases: The proposal suggests that fact-finding in criminal cases could be handled efficiently through these supervised mechanisms, theoretically reducing the time to conviction or acquittal.

2. Potential to Enhance Integrity in Administration of Justice

  • Meritocratic Approach: Judge Hamid Sultan envisions this as a way to create a more meritocratic legal industry, removing the potential for corruption or favoritism in fact-finding that might occur in a heavily burdened, secretive court system.
  • Independence from “Elite” Influence: By introducing external academia into the process, it reduces the chance of powerful vested interests manipulating the outcome of cases, as highlighted by Judge Hamid Sultan’s advocacy for “restoring meritocracy”.
  • Independent Review: The proposal ensures that the final decisions on points of law still rest with the court, maintaining judicial oversight while ensuring a “cleaner” fact-finding process.

3. Role of Criminologists and Recommendations for the Commonwealth

Criminologists, as academic experts in crime, behavioral patterns, and the effectiveness of law enforcement, are well-suited to study this proposal.

  • Evidence-Based Evaluation: Criminologists can evaluate whether the “University cum Court” model truly reduces corruption and case delays based on empirical data, rather than theoretical assumptions.
  • Interdisciplinary Insight: Criminologists can collaborate with legal experts to determine the validity of university academics as impartial fact-finders in criminal proceedings.
  • Recommendation Potential: Criminologists can provide recommendations to governments across the Commonwealth on implementing these models tailored to local legal systems, ensuring they improve justice delivery and align with international human rights standards.
  • Restorative Justice Integration: Criminologists could integrate restorative justice principles into the university-supervised fact-finding process.
Conclusion: The proposal presents a proactive, “out-of-the-box” method to tackle the systemic challenges of backlogs and integrity. While innovative, its success relies heavily on implementing a robust, transparent framework for academic participation. Criminologists and legal researchers in the Commonwealth should study this proposal as a potential model for systemic reform.
 
 

"Information regarding the judicial reform proposals of Justice (R) Datuk Dr. Hj. Hamid Sultan bin Abu Backer was compiled with the assistance of Google AI. For more details on these concepts, refer to the 'University Cum Court Annexed Arbitration' framework."