Defence lawyers rounded on the Department of Public Prosecutions during a lengthy and sometimes heated monthly arraignments hearing in Supreme Court yesterday.

A number of attorneys argued that the department was failing to hand over evidence-related documents in a timely manner, resulting in extensive delays before cases could go to trial.

Defence attorney Elizabeth Christopher was first to make the charge.

Referring to one of her clients in custody, she said that the DPP had failed to disclose all prosecution documents.

As a result, she was unable to submit a bail application. She said: “This gentleman missed his daughter’s funeral because of this file. This is atrocious.

“Defence counsel have to listen to a whole bunch of rah-rah, to put it politely. Something has to happen here. It can’t go on.”

In another matter, prosecutor Adley Duncan assured defence lawyer Charles Richardson that full disclosure of the Crown’s evidence would be produced.

Addressing Puisne Judge Alan Richards, Mr Richardson replied: “I feel like I’m listening to an ex-girlfriend who always made promises but never kept them.

“The Crown have to get their tackle in order. What they really need is a disclosure officer to take the heat off them.

“The wheels of justice are not moving because the DPP is not oiling them. Things have gone haywire.”

Mr Richardson added that defence lawyers were not told which DPP attorney was handling any particular case, and that e-mails often went unanswered.

Lawyers Victoria Greening and Nicole Smith expressed similar concerns.

Ms Greening said that, in one of her cases involving CCTV evidence, the DPP had provided her with photographs of the discs containing video footage — but not the discs themselves.

She told Mr Justice Richards: “Obviously I can’t put that into my computer — it’s just a piece of paper.”

Ms Smith said that she repeatedly had to carry out audits of what the DPP had claimed to provide in terms of evidence, and what she actually received.

She added: “That shouldn’t be my job.”

Mr Justice Richards expressed sympathy with lawyers’ complaints, but pointed out that, under court rules, the DPP had 70 days to provide defendants with a summary of their case and all relevant evidence such as transcripts of police interviews, forensic reports and CCTV footage once legal proceedings began.

In the majority of yesterday’s cases, that 70-day deadline had not been breached.

At the end of the session, Mr Duncan said that he would raise the issue of disclosure within the department.

He suggested to Mr Justice Richards that a cap be placed on the number of cases put before arraignment hearings.

Almost 50 defendants were listed to appear at the sitting, which lasted almost 4½ hours.