THE ARTICLES IN THIS DOUBLE ISSUE HAVE BEENdeveloped by the authors from papers they presented at the MonaLaw 5th and 6th annual symposium on Law, Governance and Society, respectively. The former symposium was held under the theme “The Triple ‘R’ Strategy: Rights, Remedies and Reputation”. Meanwhile, the theme of the 6th symposium was “Law and Justice in a ‘Novel’ Era”, a candid reference to the novel coronavirus which had overtaken the world and impacted every aspect of life, including law enforcement and the administration of justice.

One common thread running through the two symposia is the protective role that is, or ought to be, played by the law. Whether it is the protection of children, the environment, the disabled, the financial industry, the public sector or even the reputation of individuals, there is a significant onus on the law to not only establish rights but to provide concomitant remedies.

In this regard, if justice is the embodiment of such legal protection, there remain many challenges for its pursuit and attainment. For instance, in some jurisdictions, the slow pace at which lawmakers convert policy into legislation results in severe lacunae in areas requiring urgent statutory intervention.

In other jurisdictions, whilst there is no shortage of enacted legislation, there exist deficiencies in the mechanism required for the effective implementation and enforcement of such laws. This may stem from delays with the necessary supporting regulations or may even extend to the abject failure to construct essential infrastructure. In such cases, the inability to assemble and equip the requisite framework with the necessary personnel and technology may be due to a lack of resources on the part of the state. In other instances, such inefficiency may be attributed to plain lethargy, or even apathy, on the part of those charged with translating good intentions to enforceable rights and responsibilities.

Apart from issues relating to the legislative process and the enforcement apparatus, the intended protective role of the law may be diminished by defects in the administration of justice. Delays in trials, due to a backlog of cases, the reticence of witnesses to come to court, or myriad other clogs in the system, may deter many aggrieved persons from seeking justice through the courts.

The Statue of Liberty implores the world to give her “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore . . . the homeless, tempest-tossed”. Likewise, the courts should be a place of refuge for anyone whose rights have been transgressed.

However, access to justice is another major cause for concern. Mark Twain once quipped that “the law is a system that protects everybody who can afford to hire a good lawyer.” Indeed, the high cost of litigation and the restrictive scope of legal aid represent an oft insurmountable barrier for some impecunious persons. Avenues to obtain relief via alternative modes of dispute resolution and principles
of restorative justice represent viable opportunities for extending the ambit of legal protection and ought to be further developed.

As we move forward, we need to constantly re-think the evolution of laws within the context of all who are in need of its shelter. From inception to implementation, all the way through to interpretation, the legal process should be efficient, comprehensive and accessible.

Perhaps, with greater effort, in our own society and not just in an ideal world, the law would become “a system that protects everybody”.