Who should speak about court decisions on behalf of the court?
01.11.2022
In 2018, the High Council of Justice appointed 10 speaker-judges, but no briefings were conducted with the media to inform the public about the court decisions.
For the public to have faith in the court system, they must be involved in the judicial process at least to some degree, in terms of having information about the events taking place within the court system. The speaker-Judge Institution is one of the most important means of achieving this, it has existed in Georgia for years, and in this article, we will discuss how it functions.
In 2018, the High Council of Justice approved the communication strategy of the judicial system. "Public trust is a key point for the legitimacy and effective functioning of the judicial system. The strategic document of the judicial system assesses the low level of recognition of judicial independence in society as one of the serious challenges. It is important that when assessing the situation present in the judicial system strategy, the problems that are directly correlated with the formation of attitudes and perceptions towards the judicial system in society are also reflected."- We gather from the document.
It is also stated that: "one of the main recommendations of the ENCJ [European Networks of Councils for the Judiciary] is the introduction of a speaker institution that speaks to the public on behalf of the judiciary. The main task of the speaker is to inform the press and the public about legal decisions and procedures. They should deliver the court system's message to the audience in an effective manner, in a simple and understandable language.“
Six years ago, in 2016, by the decision of the High Council of Justice of Georgia, the decree on Public Relations Service and speaker-judge of the common courts of Georgia was approved. According to this document, the Public Relations Office of the common courts and the speaker-judge should work in a coordinated manner to inform the public about the activities of the court and the measures taken in the judicial system. The document defined the functions of the Public Relations Service and speaker-judges.
Public Relations Service of common courts
- In agreement with the Public Relations Office of the High Council of justice, they conduct public relations policy and participate in the Working Group created by the same service, which defines communication policy and strategy;
- Publishes information about the activities of the court on the official website;
- According to the requests, provides information to mass media;
- Helps judges communicate with media representatives;
- At the proposition of the judge hearing the case or on the initiative of the chairman of the court organizes briefings, press conferences, and other events. Also, prepares press releases and information papers;
- Is authorized to request information from the case review Judge to prepare materials for distribution;
- Provides information and necessary documents for the speaker-judge;
- Provides mass media coverage of court hearings, etc.
Competence of the speaker-judge
To provide the necessary information and substantiation about the decisions made by the court. He /she should promptly search for facts and provide them to media outlets within a reasonable time after verifying their accuracy.
The speaker-judge is appointed by the High Council of Justice on the recommendation of the chairperson of the court, in agreement with the judges of the same court. It is also possible to have several speaker-judges in one court with different specializations.
According to the 2018 May 21 decision of the High Council of Justice of Georgia, the following speaker-judges were appointed to the common courts.
Tbilisi Court of Appeals
1. Tamar Alania;
2. Shota Getsadze;
3. Miranda Eremadze;
4. Nino Sandodze.
Tbilisi City Court
1. Khatia Ardazishvili;
2. Aleksandre Iashvili;
3. Nikoloz Margvelashvili;
4. Levan Mikaberidze;
5. Maia Svianadze;
6. Diana Parkosadze.
The Georgian Court Watch examined the public statements made by the speaker-judge of various courts since 2018 and conducted briefings.
The statement of only a single speaker-judge, Aleksandre Iashvili, is found on the websites of courts or online spheres. In particular, in 2020 Aleksandre Iashvili of the Tbilisi City Court explained the restrictions imposed in the court due to the pandemic. He called on citizens to refrain from court visits to prevent the spread of coronavirus.
The activities of the other 9 speakers-judges, and what actions they were doing in this capacity to inform the public, are nowhere to be found.
2. Aleksandre Iashvili;
3. Nikoloz Margvelashvili;
4. Levan Mikaberidze;
5. Maia Svianadze;
6. Diana Parkosadze.
The Georgian Court Watch examined the public statements made by the speaker-judge of various courts since 2018 and conducted briefings.
The statement of only a single speaker-judge, Aleksandre Iashvili, is found on the websites of courts or online spheres. In particular, in 2020 Aleksandre Iashvili of the Tbilisi City Court explained the restrictions imposed in the court due to the pandemic. He called on citizens to refrain from court visits to prevent the spread of coronavirus.
The activities of the other 9 speakers-judges, and what actions they were doing in this capacity to inform the public, are nowhere to be found.
“Even though ten judges were granted the authority of the speaker, none of the speaker-judges held a briefing and made explanations to inform the public about the decisions made by the court.”
It should be noted that in the past the judicial system has the experience of an active speaker-judge - during 2008-2018 Eka Areshidze was the speaker-judge of the Tbilisi City Court. The decision on appointing Eka Areshidze as the speaker-judge is absent from the website of the High Council of justice; however, according to the information found in the internet sources, judge Areshidze represented the court in this role.
The overall picture gives grounds to conclude that the speaker-judge institution is not functioning in Georgian courts. This is when one of the main measures of democracy and efficiency of this institute is considered to be informing the public and ensuring its involvement. Why does the judicial system not adhere to the principle of accountability? Do specific speaker-judges not properly fulfill their duties, or does the system policy exclude the effectiveness of this institution? In any case, it is a fact that providing information to the public about their activities is not included in the agenda of the common courts of Georgia.
It should also be noted that, even though the Institute of Speaker-judges only exists on paper, in the recent past, in 2022, on September 21, the High Council of Justice made another decision on appointing speaker-judges in Tbilisi appellate and city courts.
The overall picture gives grounds to conclude that the speaker-judge institution is not functioning in Georgian courts. This is when one of the main measures of democracy and efficiency of this institute is considered to be informing the public and ensuring its involvement. Why does the judicial system not adhere to the principle of accountability? Do specific speaker-judges not properly fulfill their duties, or does the system policy exclude the effectiveness of this institution? In any case, it is a fact that providing information to the public about their activities is not included in the agenda of the common courts of Georgia.
It should also be noted that, even though the Institute of Speaker-judges only exists on paper, in the recent past, in 2022, on September 21, the High Council of Justice made another decision on appointing speaker-judges in Tbilisi appellate and city courts.
In Tbilisi Court of Appeals the following Speaker-judges were appointed
Dimitri Gvritishvili;
Lavrenty Maglakelidze;
Khatia Ardazishvili;
David Mamiseishvili;
Tamar Alania.
Tbilisi City Court
Salome Gvelesiani;
Aleksandre Iashvili;
Maia Kokiashvili;
Lela Tsagareishvili.
Georgian Court Watch will monitor whether the speaker-judges will fulfill their obligations - whether they will provide the public with necessary information and explanations about the decisions taken by the court, and whether they will cooperate with media outlets for this purpose.
