| Mymensingh Courts Case Data | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Citizen Survey | Q:601) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| If you something bad happened to you, do you think you would get justice? | Women | N | Men | N | |||||||||||||||||
| Yes | 76.4% | 601 | 66.6% | 599 | |||||||||||||||||
| Citizen Survey | Q:602 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Where would you go to get justice if something bad happened to you? | Traditional Local arbiters | State Distict | Traditional Local arbiters | None | State Upazilla | Traditional Local arbiters | Sponsored Local arbiters | ||||||||||||||
| respected member of the community | Courts | UP Chair | Nowhere | Police | Shalish | elected representative (not including UP Chair) | Village court, NGO, Other | N | |||||||||||||
| Women | 14.0% | 24.0% | 35.6% | 6.0% | 7.3% | 1.0% | 5.9% | 0.5 | 601 | ||||||||||||
| Men | 26.5% | 25.9% | 25.5% | 11.7% | 3.0% | .7 | 5.5% | .2 | 599 | ||||||||||||
| Citizen Survey | Q:501 | Q:301 | Q:201 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Have never used | Formal court | Village court | Shalish | ||||||||||||||||||
| N | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Women | 96.5% | 100% | 92.3% | 601 | |||||||||||||||||
| Men | 83.8% | 99.3 | 81.8% | 599 | |||||||||||||||||
| Practitioner Survey, Public Outside Court | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Three most common attitudes among people attending court: | insufficient data | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Experiences of detainees awaiting Court appearance in Court holding cells: | Were represented by a lawyer | Agreed that lawyers did not attend all scheduled appearances | Understood what was happening with their cases | N | |||||||||||||||||
| Women | 100.0% | 0.0% | 100.0% | 2 | |||||||||||||||||
| Men | 100.0% | 0.0% | 75.0% | 80 | |||||||||||||||||
| Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (CJM) Case Processing (2012) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Cases carried over from previous year | New cases | Total carried over and new cases | Convictions | Acquittals | Other | Guilty Pleas | Total cases disposed | Cases carried forward into next year | Pending caseload growth rate | ||||||||||||
| 11513 | 10905 | 22418 | 1875 | 8984 | 1553 | 12412 | 10006 | -13.1% | Data note | Supreme court data gives: 0.2% | |||||||||||
| Note About Data | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Criminal case processing data from the Supreme Court does not confirm overall numbers of cases facing the court and unresolved cases carried forward. Cases carried forward: 18,513; New cases (Cases Filed): 16,224; Disposed: 16,178; Cases carried forward (end year): 18,559 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Age of (CJM) Pending Cases (2012) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Year of case filing | No data | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Number of cases | No data | ||||||||||||||||||||
| District Sessions Court (DSC) Case Processing (2012) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Cases carried over from previous year | New cases | Total carried over and new cases | Convictions | Acquittals | Other | Guilty pleas | Total cases disposed | Cases carried forward into next year | Pending caseload growth rate | Data note | |||||||||||
| 5002 | 5033 | 10035 | 2836 | 2836 | 7199 | 43.9% | SC data gives: 25% | ||||||||||||||
| Civil Cases carried over from previous year | New Civil cases | Total carried over and new cases | Convictions | Acquittals | Other | Guilty pleas | Total cases disposed | Cases carried forward into next year | Pending caseload growth rate | ||||||||||||
| No data | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total DSC cases carried over from previous year | Total DSC New cases | Total Criminal and Civil carried over and new cases | |||||||||||||||||||
| No data | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Note About Data | |||||||||||||||||||||
| No breakdown of criminal case disposal categories available from District Sessions Court. Criminal case processing data from the Supreme Court provides for DSC and Special judge the following: Cases carried forward: 5,282; New Cases (Cases Filed): 4,239; Disposed: 2,915; Carried forward (end year 2012): 6,600 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Nari-o-Shishu Court Case Processing (2012) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Cases carried over from previous year | New cases | Total carried over and new cases | Convictions | Acquittals | Other | Guilty pleas | Total cases disposed | Cases carried forward into next year | Pending caseload growth rate | Data note | |||||||||||
| 1009 | 670 | 1679 | 176 | 205 | 381 | 1298 | 28.6% | SC data: 24% | |||||||||||||
| Note About Data | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Supreme Court data does not confirm new cases and disposed cases and supplemented cases carried over and carried forward. Cases carried forward: 1,173; New Cases (Cases Filed): 1,637; Disposed: 1,358; Carried forward (end year 2012): 1,452 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Age of (NOS) Pending Cases (2012) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Year of case filing | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | % of cases pending more than 5 years | ||
| Number of cases | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 7 | 11 | 20 | 22 | 140 | 142 | 210 | 510 | 3.2 | ||
| Practitioner Survey, Magistrates (N:1), Clerk (N:1), lawyers at court N:1). | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Most common characterization of formal justice processes from practitioners at CJM courts | Av no. adjournments per case | Main reason for adjournments | Av time to complete trial | Proportion of trials ending in a guilty plea | Proportion of offences compounded | Proportion accused rep by lawyer | Any pre-trial review to expedite case disposal | Local co-ordination mechanism for justice actors to meet regularly to discuss local justice situation | Proportion of accused who are women | Most common crimes of which women accused | |||||||||||
| 25-50 (Clerk) | non attendance of witness | Time varies (Mag); 1 to 2 years (Clerk) | Very few (Mag); Nobody pleads Guilty (Clerk) | No response | Most (Mag); Very few (Clerk) | No (Mag) | No (Mag) | Less than 5% (both) | Narcotics, murder | ||||||||||||
| Practitioner Survey DS Court (N:1), Clerk (N:1), Prosecutor, Bar and lawyers at court (N:3) | N | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Most common characterization of formal justice processes from practitioners at DS courts | Av no. adjournments per case | Main reason for adjournments | Av time to complete trial | Proportion of trials ending in a guilty plea | Proportion of offences compounded | Proportion accused rep by lawyer | Any pre-trial review to expedite case disposal | Local co-ordination mechanism for justice actors to meet regularly to discuss local justice situation | Proportion of accused who are women | Most common crimes of which women accused | 7 | ||||||||||
| 25-50 (Judge); 10-25 (Clerk) | non attendance of witness | Time varies (Judge); More than 2 years (Clerk) | Very few (both) | Very few (Judge) | Most (both) | No (Judge) | Yes (Judge) | Less than 5% | Narcotics (both), murder (Judge), assault (clerk) | ||||||||||||
| Citizen Survey | Q507 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Single most important reason for having the crime against you dealt with through the formal court (top 4 responses): | Will get justice | Told it is the right place to go | Quickest process | Easy to get to | N | ||||||||||||||||
| Women | 58.3% | 16.7% | 8.3% | 8.3% | 12 | ||||||||||||||||
| Men | 77.8% | 11.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 9 | ||||||||||||||||
| Citizen Survey | Q204 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Single most important reason for having the crime against you dealt with by Shalish (top 4 responses): | Will get justice | Quickest process | Easy to get to | Told it is the right place to go | N | ||||||||||||||||
| Women | 25.0% | 15.6% | 31.0% | 3.0% | 32 | ||||||||||||||||
| Men | 18.9% | 28.4% | 9.5% | 17.9% | 95 | ||||||||||||||||
| Village Court (VC) Case Processing (2012) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| New cases | Cases appealed | Cases implemented | |||||||||||||||||||
| Women | Men | Total | |||||||||||||||||||
| See list of individual Village Courts in Infrastructure tab | No data | No data | No data | No data | No data | ||||||||||||||||
| Practitioner Survey (N:4) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Most common characterization of cases and processes from practitioners at 2 sampled Village Courts in Fulbaria and Shohagi union parishads: | 25 -50% applicants are women | assault, and land/neighbour dispute (eg cutting trees) | Very few cases appealed to the CJM | Average monthly caseload of 10 -15 | Court proceedings are held once a month | almost all cases are implemented | |||||||||||||||
| Practitioner Survey, Outside Court | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Most common attitudes of Village Court users | No data | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Data note | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Court was not sitting | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Shalish Case Processing | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Practitioner Survey, Shalishkar (N:4) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Most common characterization of cases and processes: | 10 - 35% applicants are women | Top 3 main complaints are land /
neighbour disputes, theft |
Average monthly caseload is between 2 and 15 | Resolve most cases each month | Refer very few cases to police per month | 90-95% cases maintain the settlement agreed to in Shalish | Main challenge faced with police - none | Restitution is the most common resolution | |||||||||||||
| Citizen Survey | Q208a, 207, 208d | Data note | |||||||||||||||||||
| Case resolution was reached | Case was resolved in under one month | Issue had a fair hearing | N | Data suggests negative framing of question caused confusion (in translation). High rates of compliance appear to be recorded. | |||||||||||||||||
| Women | 90.9% | 93.2% | 93.2% | 44 | |||||||||||||||||
| Men | 89.0% | 85.3% | 91.7% | 109 | |||||||||||||||||