A recent ruling by the Court of Cassation stipulates that lawyers cannot plead “unlimited.” Judges can inform them beforehand about the amount of time they have to present their case. During a hearing in Ghent for extending the pre-trial detention of a suspect, a lawyer had only ten minutes to plead, causing him to complain. However, the Court specified that there is no law that grants lawyers the right to speak as long as they want. The lawyer could not prove that the time constraint affected their right to defense. Some fear that this judgment could rush hearings and give the wrong impression of justice. Those who oppose the ruling argue that criminal cases require oral arguments and that preventive detention cases require particular attention to the rights of the accused. Conversely, some lawyers do not see the constraint on speaking time as a significant issue. In correctional cases, for example, the hearings follow a strict schedule, and a lengthy argument may not be advisable. Only the assizes allow unlimited time as jury members need convincing.
Lawyers can no longer plead “unlimited”. Judges can tell them in advance how much time they have to present their case, according to a judgment of the Court of Cassation. A lawyer had complained because, during an indictment hearing in Ghent for the extension of the pre-trial detention of a suspect, the three judges had granted him only 10 minutes to plead. The lawyer could not demonstrate that the limit had affected his right to defence. And, above all, the Court specifies that there is no legislation which grants a lawyer the right to plead as long as he wishes.
This judgment should give the wrong signal, a green light to rush the hearings, in particular to unclog the courts.
“In a rule of law, the right to defense is central”, yet recalled, in De Standaard, a spokesperson for the Flemish Bar. “Justice must show a human face, and it certainly does when it comes to a person’s freedom. To rush a case in this way, or even to give the impression of it, is not the image that justice wishes to give.”
“This judgment can all the same open up worrying prospects. We know that there is no legislation on speaking time during pleadings. But this judgment should only give the wrong signal, a green light to rush the hearings, in particular to unclog the courts.”, comments Pierre Sculier, president of the Order of the French-speaking and German-speaking bars. “It is the eternal debate between pragmatism, the smooth running of hearings and the desire of lawyers to express themselves freely. Ten minutes ? The time to explain why we want to plead longer and the ten minutes have passed. This judgment is all the more dangerous as it concerns an extension of preventive detention. It is precisely on this type of question that the most attention must be devoted to the rights of the accused. It is a question of keeping him or not in prison when he has not yet been sentenced. In civil matters, pleadings can go very quickly. But in criminal cases, oral pleading is important.”
Criminal lawyer and extraordinary professor at the University of Liège, Adrien Masset is less alarmist: “I never felt that I was restricted in my speaking time. In general, this is done in good agreement with the judges. If he wants to go long, the lawyer sends his written conclusions, without being limited by a number of pages. What many lawyers never do. Yet it is to these conclusions that the judge will respond. In correctional, we may be limited in time. The hearings follow one another, everything has to pass by 12:30 p.m. or 5:30 p.m. Blocking everything would be a little selfish. The pleading is not there to synthesize, to emphasize one point or another. Just because it’s long doesn’t mean it’s good.”
At the assizes, the duration of the argument is, in fact, unlimited: there is a jury to convince.
In conclusion, the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation limits the time lawyers have to plead their case, and has sparked debate among legal professionals. While some see this as a necessary measure to expedite court proceedings and unclog the justice system, others argue that it could compromise the right to defence and give the wrong impression of justice. Ultimately, the balance between smooth proceedings and the rights of the accused will continue to be a topic of discussion and negotiation in courts of law.