[Reporter’s Notebook] Everyday criminal cases sidelined by special prosecutor probes

Sixty-seven. That is the number of indictments filed in the second half of last year by the three major special prosecutors handling the insurrection, the Kim Keon-hee case, and the Corporal Chae case. All of these cases landed at the Seoul Central District Court. Thirteen of its sixteen Criminal Panel Divisions are now in charge of special prosecutor cases. Each division is handling anywhere from one to as many as six such cases. If you add the spin-off trials that were separated from the main indictments, the actual number of hearings is even higher.
As a result, ordinary cases assigned to these divisions have inevitably been pushed to the back burner. Under the special prosecutor acts, special prosecutor cases must meet a statutory deadline of six months for the first-instance trial, so the courts are holding hearings at least once a week to keep up the pace. High-profile matters, such as the case involving former Minister of Justice Park Sung-jae, are being heard twice a week. In theory, a division could spend all five working days of the week just on special prosecutor trials.
In the end, it is everyday criminal cases that are paying the price. Many of the cases assigned to these divisions are drifting along without even having proper hearing dates set. The creation of a Special Panel for Insurrection Cases has also funneled more cases into the remaining general divisions. The Seoul Central District Court has tried to respond by assigning additional judges through personnel changes and setting up a People’s Livelihood Criminal Division, but it has not been enough. One Presiding Judge lamented, "The volume of ordinary cases transferred to us along with special prosecutor cases has grown so large that we simply cannot process them properly." Even before this surge, caseloads were already heavy; now, trial delays have become almost unavoidable.
The purpose of a trial is to ensure that no one is wrongfully convicted and that those who have done wrong are punished. Yet the current situation in the courts suggests that "special prosecutor trials" are crowding out "people’s livelihood trials." Delays have deepened, and both victims and defendants are left waiting indefinitely, not knowing when their day in court will come. Beyond the questions of redress and punishment, the ongoing burden of attorney’s fees and other costs ultimately falls on ordinary citizens.
As the omnibus special prosecutor team continues its investigations, the number of special prosecutor trials is expected to grow even further. The courts are already fighting a war. But the individuals standing trial are each fighting their own personal war as well. Resolving nationally contentious suspicions is part of the judiciary’s role, but the courts must also serve those parties who have no choice but to pin their hopes on the judicial process.
Unless a system is put in place that allows both "special prosecutor trials" and "people’s livelihood trials" to proceed at a proper pace, public distrust in the judiciary will linger long after the verdicts in these headline-grabbing cases are handed down. Justice depends not only on outcomes but also on timeliness. It is time for the courts to give answers first to citizens who have grown weary of waiting.
theknight@fnnews.com Reporter Jung Kyung-soo, city news desk Reporter